Ducati Monster Forum

If you can view this video it's absolutly increadable to see just how far automotive contruction techniques have increased our safety.

Here's the video:

1959 Chevrolet Bel Air Vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu IIHS Offset (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CU-k0XmLUk&feature=player_embedded#ws-normal)

 :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

HOLY FLURKING SHNIT!!!!!!!


(http://www.shipbrook.com/karen/blog/images/kang.gif)

That Malibu shredded that old Bel Air!!!

Looks as though the '59 didn't start losing momentum until the '09 met it's firewall!

Scary to think about.  :o

The '09 does a MUCH better job of distributing the energies of the crash despite likely having a LARGE weight disadvantage (it's lighter I'm sure) as compared to the '59.


Wow.

I was thinking about that..

turns out the malibu is heavier. 3400 lbs vs 3200 lbs for the bel air.

Its all about strength from the unibody. the entire vehicle is a frame, rather then a body on a frame. since about the mid 90's cars have gotten so much safer.

Damn!!   :o


My first car was a '66 Bel Air.  Didn't seem like safety concerns had changed much from '59 to '66 since the neighbor backed into the drivers-side door and crushed it!  It was a tap by todays standards.


BTW..any idea on the speed??  I saw "50" on top of the cars but wasn't sure if that was related to the mph.

  

I think 50 designates the 50th anniversary of IIHS

typically frontal offset tests are at 40 mph

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/frontal_test_info.html (http://www.iihs.org/ratings/frontal_test_info.html)

OK..thanks RM.

I watched a few of the tests before and 35mph was in my head.   

Holy shit!

Here's a question - is age at all a factor in the 59's ability to handle an impact like that? Or rather would a brand new 59 handle the impact the same way as one that's 50 yrs old?

I don't think the age of things is a factor here. Notice that the '59 was in good shape, with no indication of rust or other damage.

The difference is in materials and engineering.

Wow.  That's a really interesting video!   :o  :o

It looks like the Malibu driver could survive (airbags, crumple zones, and the aforementioned unibody), but the driver of the Bel Air....not so much. 

anyone else notice the IZ_ dice in the '59? At least the driveer would have been cool when he died.

Indeed. I'd still rather own the Bel Air.

That's funny, I hadn't noticed that! LOL!

More footage with interior shots...


1959 Chevrolet Bel Air Vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu IIHS Offset (New Footage - Interior Views) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d309QCuve7c&feature=response_watch#normal)

The important question is did the IZ_ dice survive :P  I am not surprised by that video one bit.

You know what, I think they did!

It says at the end of the video that the Malibu driver would have had a slight knee injury, but the driver of the Bel Air would have died instantly.
In the first 30 seconds or so, it confirms Randy's thought that is was a combined 80mph offset crash, both vehicles traveling at 40mph...

Me thinks this may be more of a set-up than it appears. The GM X-frame cars were apparently well known to fare badly in a crash, and you can pretty clearly see the cloud of rust dust at impact.  I wonder what kind of shape the Bel Air was in prior to the test. 

So, should they build a brand new 1959 for the test?  Accelerate age a 2009 to 59 condition in a salt chamber? Or argue that today's cars are less safe? 

It was probably intended as a cool video, not a proof of a theorem. 

mitt

Cars may be safer, but what about the other part of the equation, us drivers?  Somehow I don't think so.

 I think you're right. In 1959, people in general had a higher respect for cars. And, not everyone had them...

Moreover, why isn't anyone outraged that a classic car has been trashed?

Seriously?  did we REALLY need this done to prove anything?  How many '59 models are still on the road at ALL?

Seems to me they could have used a 1970s car to "prove" cars are better, rather than trashing a genuine antique.

all this video proves to me is that we've done a great deal to prevent idiots from killing themselves (and yes, others) with cars.

Darwin hangs his head...

I think its probably not.

the point of the test is, to comparable cars, being sold to the same type of people (small family sedan) for roughly the same price (based on inflation) and at about the same weight.

It KILLS the old saying "they don't make them like they used to"

the test was used to demonstrate how much technology has made our lives better. I doubt some rust really made that big a difference, it was structurally insufficient from the start. Back in those days, no one ever thought about safety.

Cab on frame vehicles just aren't that safe to began with. Last year I was in a accident where a truck ran a light, we were in a small sturdy car (audi A4), they were in a truck (dual cab ranger) we were out and walking around, they were flipped over unconscious.  (granted my back still kills me, especially in the mornings)

 

people don't change.. might as well put them in a better box. remember, and alive customer is better then a dead one!

Wow, those inside shots are awesome!!!

except it wouldn't have been a 50 year old difference in the cars' ages for the 50th anniversary.

As I recall it was a four-door.  No collectors value  :)  At least that's what I recall from the good ol' days - everybody wanted a two-door.

Still...  Its a 59!  They could have done two 1984 models instead

My head hurts!

The video was meant to compare relative safety of two different vehicles.  If one is a rusted out hulk and the other in new condition, the results are going to be meaningless, unless, of course, it's just a publicity gimmick.  A far better test would have been two 59's head- on, then two Malibu's.