08-14-2012, 04:18 PM | #67 | |
TIM YOYO
1506
Rep 3,282
Posts
Drives: 2013 M3
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Vero Beach, FL
|
Quote:
There's no way to spin this. Volvo has the right idea. It's not the end of the world though. As noted in the video, this type of crash isn't the one that kills you, it's the one that breaks your legs. Fun times!
__________________
His: 2019 R1250GS - Black
Hers: 2013 X3 28i - N20 Mineral Silver / Sand Beige / Premium, Tech Past: 2013 ///M3 - Interlagos Blue Black M-DCT Past: 2010 135i - TiAg Coral Red 6MT ///M-Sport |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2012, 04:47 PM | #68 | |
Major General
427
Rep 6,968
Posts |
Quote:
Who drives 60 in their BMW or European cars. In reality most BMW drivers around my area do 80 and the fast drivers are doing 90-100. It's perfectly realistic to say they are able to shave off 60mph from 100 to hit the center divider or a pole at 40. This is a slap across the face on most German cars.
__________________
- There's nothing in my pocket other than knives and lint
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2012, 04:56 PM | #69 |
Captain
98
Rep 900
Posts |
Agree. This is a poor showing on an important test. It's a terrible day for BMW right now; this isn't good at all.
People on BMW internet forums can rationalize the test result all day long, but it's still a crash test result where BMW performed poorly. Nothing positive about it, unless you count Audi and Mercedes coming in even worse.
__________________
-Will
2013 535i xDrive M-Sport | 2005 545i Sport (Retired and missed) | 2001 X5 3.0 Sport (Retired) |
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2012, 05:05 PM | #70 |
First Lieutenant
12
Rep 374
Posts |
What's with all the doom and gloom? Do you know the odds on hitting an object at the exact point on the car, heading in the exact direction, going the exact speed, with no breaking, with one person in the car weighing the exact weight as the dummy with no luggage in the trunk with the exact tires? Astronomical. Yes, that angle crash happens in 25% of all accidents. But those accidents include every car maker known to man. BMW is but one manufacturer. The question of whether it is a bad day for BMW should be, how many f30 BMWs have had the exact accident where the person sustained sever injuries because of the "mediocre" protection? If the answer is 100%, THEN that's a bad day. If 75% walk away, then that's not so bad. You have to look through the general numbers.
__________________
------------------------------------
2013 328i M-Sport PCD / Estoril Blue II / Aluminum Hex Trim / Estoril Blue Matt / Black Leather / Tech Pkg / HK / Alarm / Xenons Current Status: She's Home! |
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2012, 05:08 PM | #71 | |
First Lieutenant
12
Rep 374
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
------------------------------------
2013 328i M-Sport PCD / Estoril Blue II / Aluminum Hex Trim / Estoril Blue Matt / Black Leather / Tech Pkg / HK / Alarm / Xenons Current Status: She's Home! |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2012, 05:26 PM | #72 |
Major General
427
Rep 6,968
Posts |
Accidents are accidents, most of the time we don't get to choose whether to have a collision or not otherwise it won't be called an accident. One of the key deciding factors in my family when we cross shop European and Asian cars are safety. Europeans have a long history of building fun and safe cars. They still do, but Asians have caught up and this particular test exposes a flaw in current design, no need to get defensive about it.
__________________
- There's nothing in my pocket other than knives and lint
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2012, 05:47 PM | #73 |
Captain
161
Rep 842
Posts |
Yup for the purposes of this test the Volvo beat the F30 fair and square, and yes any amount of excuses can be made, but they all apply to the Volvo too. It would be interesting to see the test repeated a few times, and see how consistent the results are.
I would say the only issue of deflection or breakaway wheels being the increased chance of secondary collisions, whether it be you bouncing in to a car doing 60mph head on, or your wheel coming off and paralysing passing school children. |
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2012, 06:08 PM | #74 | |
Lieutenant
153
Rep 487
Posts |
I think it is more fair to say that it is a bad day for consumer safety; if you check the IIHS website, you will see that this is a new test, does not affect their 2012 Top Safety Award to BMW 3 series, and has not been performed for most new cars. My guess is that many other models will test poorly in this specific and newly designed test as well. Not that "everyone else sucks" is a good defense, but I don't see this as an indictment of BMW but the car industry in general.
The 3 series still gets top ratings for moderate overlap front, side impact, roof safety and rear crash tests, and is still a top safety pick according to IIHS. "It's a terrible day for BMW" is hyperbole. Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2012, 06:54 PM | #75 |
First Lieutenant
105
Rep 310
Posts |
Acrura and Honda have historically produced some of the worst crash test of any car ever manufactured so I don't really place a great deal of merit on a single test like this.
The F30 is stiffer and stronger than the E90, and passes other tests with flying colours. Maybe there will be adjustments if 'consistent' results show there is a weakness for this type of impact, but until we see more evidence I would take this result with a huge pinch of salt. After all, where were these guys when American cars could not even be fitted with decent headlamps - wasn't that long ago that European cars had to have their halogen headlamps ripped out and replaced with tungsten rubbish just to comply to lighting regulations. Not criticising really - but a sense of perspective is necessary I feel. |
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2012, 07:04 PM | #76 |
Brigadier General
504
Rep 3,445
Posts |
This looks to me like they designed some test that would be very difficult to justify raising everyone's insurance rates.
__________________
See my photography at http://ronscubadiver.wordpress.com
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2012, 07:35 PM | #77 |
Second Lieutenant
7
Rep 294
Posts |
In the years I have been a fireman I have yet to see this type of accident. If a person hit a tree, pole or other object, it almost always included some part of the front crash points. In the case of a tree, pole or other object coming in from the side, they usually crush some part of the A,B,or C pillar, hopefully providing some sort of protection. More importantly, in any crash be it a MINI , BMW, MB, or Dodge ram, against a tree, the tree almost always wins. To me this is a meaningless test and would not stop me from buying a F30 or even other cars on the list.
__________________
Z4M Coupe 6MT Monaco Blue #13/36 ...Keeper... Z4 3.0 6MT ...Keeper... 2OO2 5MT ...Keeper... 335i 6MT Montego Blue M-Sport (Retired),X535d Vermillion Red/Saddle (Retired) |
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2012, 07:45 PM | #78 | |
Major General
894
Rep 7,047
Posts |
Quote:
Duped? Hardly. All car manufacturers build cars to pass crash tests. Crash tests also give manufacturers data that they can use to make their cars safer. By taking the tests the car shows how well or not it performs in certain types of accidents. How many people actually make their car purchase decision based on crash testing results? I guess those who bought an Audi and MB were duped even more? Plus, this is a new test being implemented, along with the previous tests. How did the new 3 do on the current test methods? Also, how long have car companies had to design cars to perform better with this new test? Those factors are very important to know if one is comparing crash worthiness. I can easily tell you that I don't look at crash testing results as a factor to which car I buy. I buy based on performance and what I like. Even though we now know the results of this test, how many are going to sell their 3's because of it? You: Driving while texting just got a lot more lethal thanks to BMW. BMW has nothing to do with idiots who text and drive. Texting while driving is not legal in most states. If an idiot does text and drive, that is in now way BMW's fault. You're trying to make it sound as if BMW's lackluster performance in this new test is somehow at fault for not properly protecting an idiot who's own actions will cause an accident. If you apply that kind of logic, then all car makers are at fault for not making 100% crash proof cars for any type of idiotic driving that might cause an accident. Last edited by RPM90; 08-14-2012 at 08:09 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2012, 07:47 PM | #79 | |
Major General
427
Rep 6,968
Posts |
Quote:
Honda Accord in the past decade http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=276 Acura TL in the past decade http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=436 I believe they probably lucked out in this particular test but I stand to believe they are as safe as European counter parts today.
__________________
- There's nothing in my pocket other than knives and lint
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2012, 09:45 PM | #82 |
Private First Class
5
Rep 138
Posts |
Kudos to IIHS for making this test that represents a closer reality of crash test.
Also kudos to a to Acura, Volvo and Infiniti. It appears other carmakers including BMW are caught by surprise on this and how even Mercedes dares to complain of this new test not being fair, is it because they are hurt by this truth. Should we be happy that BMW came slightly better than Mercedes and Audi, NO. BMW disappointed because dud not score high where we all expected. To all their engineers who contributed to this failure the message is: back to the drawing board. Or perhaps it is not the engineers fault but of those modern smart executives who bring fresh cost cutting ideas that result to inferior cars we get now. This -MAKE IT CHEAPER- is not just in automotive industry, it is happening in all other fields. |
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2012, 10:02 PM | #83 |
Lieutenant Colonel
54
Rep 1,544
Posts |
Sorry but companies such as Volvo, Mercedes, BMW & VAG do employ a team of ppl & they do travel with emergency services to the crash scene. This has been done since the 90's.
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2012, 10:09 PM | #84 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
54
Rep 1,544
Posts |
Quote:
It depends on where the cuts are. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2012, 10:10 PM | #85 |
Lieutenant Colonel
54
Rep 1,544
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2012, 10:22 PM | #86 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
54
Rep 1,544
Posts |
Quote:
U can have an accident in a top scoring car & get killed, yet it's also perfectly possible that u survive without a scratch crashing in a deathtrap. As for the Volvo, an explanation as to why they have this feature is cos there are lots of accidents involving hitting wild animals in Sweden. The way a UK member here hit a deer in his brand new F30 reminded me of this. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2012, 10:23 PM | #87 | |
Captain
25
Rep 642
Posts |
Quote:
It is a blow to BMW that the new F30 cannot pass the test with a "Good" rating with a new chassis. You can be sure that the new A4 and C, when they are released, will earn a "Good" rating. Hopefully the test does its job..encourage BMW to look at the results and see what they can do to improve safety with the existing F30 chassis. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2012, 11:33 PM | #88 | |
Private
40
Rep 89
Posts |
Quote:
If you look at the tests for which there is data for both models, you'll see that they both scored good in all measures on the front moderate overlap test, they both scored good overall for side impact but while the F30 has an acceptable for torso, the E90 has an acceptable for both torso and pelvis/leg, with all other measures being good for both. In roof strength, the F30 is rated good and the E90 acceptable. I hope they publish the photos/videos from those other tests so that we can compare. Strength to weight ratio is constantly improving generation to generation for all makes, due to improved design and materials (greater use of high strength steel). Meanwhile, the IIHS keeps coming out with new tests because if every car aces all the current tests and they just call it a day, that doesn't challenge manufacturers to do better and ultimately move safety forward. It's fine for them to do this and I'm sure these manufacturers will respond, but your post is awfully alarmist for what actually happened. Note that while injuries to the left foot, ankle and lower leg were likely and the right leg possible, the risk of significant injuries to other body areas was low. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|