Safety and classics
Discussion
This is actually an extension of an old topic but I can't find it as both search functions and or the operator of the search functions seem to be useless!
Anyway,
you may remeber a discussion about the safety of old cars where a number of people were saying that sturdy old cars were safe (Jag Mk2 used as eg) and others (me included) were saying that just because it is big and seems solidly built that doesn't make it safe.
I happend across the last 5 minutes of an old Fith Gear the other day in which they crashed a giant Volvo 740 into a tiny Renault Modus supermini. The Volvo, unlike a Jag Mk2, was desigened with safety in mind and won several safety awards in its day.
I'm sure you can tell where this is going... There can be no doubt that the Volvo driver would have been severely injured or killed and the Renault driver would have probably walked away. Certainly there was no real intrusion into the Modus' footwells, the steering wheel hadn't really moved and the doors opened without much effort. None of these was true of the Volvo...
Anyway,
you may remeber a discussion about the safety of old cars where a number of people were saying that sturdy old cars were safe (Jag Mk2 used as eg) and others (me included) were saying that just because it is big and seems solidly built that doesn't make it safe.
I happend across the last 5 minutes of an old Fith Gear the other day in which they crashed a giant Volvo 740 into a tiny Renault Modus supermini. The Volvo, unlike a Jag Mk2, was desigened with safety in mind and won several safety awards in its day.
I'm sure you can tell where this is going... There can be no doubt that the Volvo driver would have been severely injured or killed and the Renault driver would have probably walked away. Certainly there was no real intrusion into the Modus' footwells, the steering wheel hadn't really moved and the doors opened without much effort. None of these was true of the Volvo...
So what you are saying is that if you are involved in an accident, then being in a modern car is likely to prove less injurious to yourself than being in a classic?
Fair enough, maybe it is. But it says nothing about whether driving a classic makes you less likely to be involved in the first place - and I would say that this is also true, since:
1) Classics tend to be driven more carefully (not necessarily more slowly, but with more awareness) than modern s
teboxes
2) Classics tend to stand out more than modern steboxes, so other drivers tend to see them
Me, I drive a Morgan. No rollbar, no dashboard padding, a wooden-rimmed steering wheel, lots of sharp edges. I find the best way to avoid being injured in an accident is to not have one.
Fair enough, maybe it is. But it says nothing about whether driving a classic makes you less likely to be involved in the first place - and I would say that this is also true, since:
1) Classics tend to be driven more carefully (not necessarily more slowly, but with more awareness) than modern s
teboxes2) Classics tend to stand out more than modern s
teboxes, so other drivers tend to see themMe, I drive a Morgan. No rollbar, no dashboard padding, a wooden-rimmed steering wheel, lots of sharp edges. I find the best way to avoid being injured in an accident is to not have one.
BMWChris said:
In the original post a number of people were of the opinion that old cars were more solidly built than modern ones and therefore safer.
Well that just shows that they don't understand how energy is absorbed in impacts, doesn't it?Of course classic cars aren't safer in accidents than modern stuff. But that doesn't automatically mean that you are more likely to be injured if you drive one.
Having owned a number of old Volvo 7 & 9 series, I am surprised that a modern renault would even mark it having ditched one at 50mph and had deer run into them too.
Still another thought, what condition was the Volvo in. TV companies (particularly some motoring and consumer programmes) have been known to bend the truth a little for effect which is why I stopped watching TG some time ago.
Modern cars are very structurally complete I know with safety cells etc the Volvo might just have been a little corroded.....just a thought.
Of course plenty of old "classics" are a ittle less structural than original too. I was motoring in the early 70's with old '60's machinery, that was rusted and held together with all sorts of crap then. How there are so many Escorts and Cortinas about now I don't know, most were rotten after 6 years. That goes for Mg's BMC, stuff Vauxhall et al. I had wood & cataloy sills on my first Midget...
Still another thought, what condition was the Volvo in. TV companies (particularly some motoring and consumer programmes) have been known to bend the truth a little for effect which is why I stopped watching TG some time ago.
Modern cars are very structurally complete I know with safety cells etc the Volvo might just have been a little corroded.....just a thought.
Of course plenty of old "classics" are a ittle less structural than original too. I was motoring in the early 70's with old '60's machinery, that was rusted and held together with all sorts of crap then. How there are so many Escorts and Cortinas about now I don't know, most were rotten after 6 years. That goes for Mg's BMC, stuff Vauxhall et al. I had wood & cataloy sills on my first Midget...
Okay, so you are proving that modern cars are safer than classics. Thats generally just common sense. It still doesn't make me want a boring, characterless, serious, dull modern car though as a toy. Fair enough for everyday driving when you need economy and modern luxuries but who gives a damn in a classic?! The point of a classic isn't about safety or economy, it's about having a love for the car itself. I don't think you can "love" a modern car as they seem to have no emotion about them.
I don't believe everything I watch on TV. I mean, how annoyed would a car company be if their offering was slated for poorer surviveability in an accident?
I've been in an accident in a classic (a multiple car pile up) and mine was the only car out of the four involved that made its own way home, after everything had been sorted out. I've been in an accident in a modern car that was at relatively low speed that resulted in two passengers injured and the front of the car staved in. Had I been in something with a little more heft, I don't believe there would have been as much damage.
You would expect that the banger racers would be after moderns if they were that sturdy... however they're not. Big Jags, Volvo's and Granada's are still the best candidates.
My opinion is I'd rather be in something solid that won't buckle when hit. So I will stick with the classics as my everyday drivers. Modern cars bore me anyway!
Regards,
Ric
I've been in an accident in a classic (a multiple car pile up) and mine was the only car out of the four involved that made its own way home, after everything had been sorted out. I've been in an accident in a modern car that was at relatively low speed that resulted in two passengers injured and the front of the car staved in. Had I been in something with a little more heft, I don't believe there would have been as much damage.
You would expect that the banger racers would be after moderns if they were that sturdy... however they're not. Big Jags, Volvo's and Granada's are still the best candidates.
My opinion is I'd rather be in something solid that won't buckle when hit. So I will stick with the classics as my everyday drivers. Modern cars bore me anyway!
Regards,
Ric
I wasn't trying to suggest classics are rubbish or even moderns are better and I'm not quite sure what I have done to illicit such a stern response!
I am simply aware that people often equate "sturdy" with "safe". Often people are also prone to extrapolating conclusions from very limited amounts of evidence. I hear lots of people say "I was in a crash and this or that happened" and "my car's really well built, you should feel how heavy the wings are" etc. We can usually name a smoker who lived till his 90's but that doesn't mean smoking is safe.
The example on the TV was at 40mph and so pretty extreme. It wouldn't surprise me if in a say, a 15mph accident, the Volvo came of considerably better than the Renault. I could imagine the Volvo driving off and the Renault being written off. If you kicked the wing of the Renault it would dent and the Volvo's might not. However, some of the Renault's crash structure is made of boron steel. It is strong where it counts.
As it happens one of my cars would be substantially less safe than the Modus in an accident and the other would be less safe than a box of tissues.
If the search facility worked and you could read the original thread that I was responding to then that might put it in context.
I am simply aware that people often equate "sturdy" with "safe". Often people are also prone to extrapolating conclusions from very limited amounts of evidence. I hear lots of people say "I was in a crash and this or that happened" and "my car's really well built, you should feel how heavy the wings are" etc. We can usually name a smoker who lived till his 90's but that doesn't mean smoking is safe.
The example on the TV was at 40mph and so pretty extreme. It wouldn't surprise me if in a say, a 15mph accident, the Volvo came of considerably better than the Renault. I could imagine the Volvo driving off and the Renault being written off. If you kicked the wing of the Renault it would dent and the Volvo's might not. However, some of the Renault's crash structure is made of boron steel. It is strong where it counts.
As it happens one of my cars would be substantially less safe than the Modus in an accident and the other would be less safe than a box of tissues.
If the search facility worked and you could read the original thread that I was responding to then that might put it in context.
BMWChris said:
There can be no doubt that the Volvo driver would have been severely injured or killed
There can be plenty of doubt.BMWChris said:
Certainly there was no real intrusion into the Modus' footwells, the steering wheel hadn't really moved and the doors opened without much effort. None of these was true of the Volvo...
The main footwell intrusion on the Volvo was of a thin plastic bit of dashboard, there’s nothing behind it but air. I’d take my chances with a slap on the shins with that. The steering wheel had moved but was it enough to cause severe injury? Depends on if you had several thick jumpers and a coat on so your seat belt wasn’t tight I suppose. As for the door taking effort to open, trust me – when your car has crashed you don’t worry about the door being a bit stiff.All IMHO of course
There are a few things in no doubt IMHO – Renault really try to push the safety aspect of their cars, what’s on TV is rarely true, and the smug people with 5* NCAP cars today will be ridiculed in 10 years for driving such death traps.
As said, the safest way to walk away from a crash is not to have one. If new car buyers were really concerned about safety they’d all have booked in for advanced driving courses to improve their observation.
garethj said:
BMWChris said:
There can be no doubt that the Volvo driver would have been severely injured or killed
There can be plenty of doubt.BMWChris said:
Certainly there was no real intrusion into the Modus' footwells, the steering wheel hadn't really moved and the doors opened without much effort. None of these was true of the Volvo...
The main footwell intrusion on the Volvo was of a thin plastic bit of dashboard, there’s nothing behind it but air. I’d take my chances with a slap on the shins with that. The steering wheel had moved but was it enough to cause severe injury? Depends on if you had several thick jumpers and a coat on so your seat belt wasn’t tight I suppose. As for the door taking effort to open, trust me – when your car has crashed you don’t worry about the door being a bit stiff.All IMHO of course
There are a few things in no doubt IMHO – Renault really try to push the safety aspect of their cars, what’s on TV is rarely true, and the smug people with 5* NCAP cars today will be ridiculed in 10 years for driving such death traps.
As said, the safest way to walk away from a crash is not to have one. If new car buyers were really concerned about safety they’d all have booked in for advanced driving courses to improve their observation.
I'm genuinly interested to know, if a man put a gun to your head and told you to choose one of the cars for a re-run of the experiment, which one would you go for? Personally I have no doubt even though I still find it difficult to get my head round the idea, a small French car would, all of the data such as NCAP and the fatal accidents investigations that corralate with it suggest, probably be the better bet.
As you say, I'll have to trust you re opening car doors following an accident becuase I've never had one of any severity. However, a friend in the Fire Service tells me they often have to cut cars up becuase the doors won't open even with crow bars, rather more than "a bit stiff".
I am aware that there are problems with NCAP and other tests. Not least that cars can be designed to pass the test rather than be safer. In the past Renault have been accused of doing this.
I would agree that this is the best way to avoid injury is not to crash and I always thought it strange that cars are designed to crash rather than to not crash! I guess modern electronics are no starting to balance this out.
I also worry about all of the weight of modern cars. The Modus is less than 100kg lighter than the Volvo!
Most people's attitude on here seem eminately sensible: I realise that new cars are, in general, less safe than old ones. I prefer older cars and am willing to take the increased risk. This is the view I take.
As I said before, all I was trying to do was give people the information. If people want to smoke, knowing it increases their chance of cancer then fair play to them. Some people, in the previous thread, were doing the equivilent of saying that smoking was healthier.
BMWChris said:
I wasn't trying to suggest classics are rubbish or even moderns are better and I'm not quite sure what I have done to illicit such a stern response!
I am simply aware that people often equate "sturdy" with "safe". Often people are also prone to extrapolating conclusions from very limited amounts of evidence. I hear lots of people say "I was in a crash and this or that happened" and "my car's really well built, you should feel how heavy the wings are" etc. We can usually name a smoker who lived till his 90's but that doesn't mean smoking is safe.
The example on the TV was at 40mph and so pretty extreme. It wouldn't surprise me if in a say, a 15mph accident, the Volvo came of considerably better than the Renault. I could imagine the Volvo driving off and the Renault being written off. If you kicked the wing of the Renault it would dent and the Volvo's might not. However, some of the Renault's crash structure is made of boron steel. It is strong where it counts.
As it happens one of my cars would be substantially less safe than the Modus in an accident and the other would be less safe than a box of tissues.
If the search facility worked and you could read the original thread that I was responding to then that might put it in context.
BMWChris, I'm not suggesting you said anything about classics being rubbish. It's just my personal preference is towards older cars over moderns. However, your first post preety much pointed out old is unsafe; which is bound to upset people.I am simply aware that people often equate "sturdy" with "safe". Often people are also prone to extrapolating conclusions from very limited amounts of evidence. I hear lots of people say "I was in a crash and this or that happened" and "my car's really well built, you should feel how heavy the wings are" etc. We can usually name a smoker who lived till his 90's but that doesn't mean smoking is safe.
The example on the TV was at 40mph and so pretty extreme. It wouldn't surprise me if in a say, a 15mph accident, the Volvo came of considerably better than the Renault. I could imagine the Volvo driving off and the Renault being written off. If you kicked the wing of the Renault it would dent and the Volvo's might not. However, some of the Renault's crash structure is made of boron steel. It is strong where it counts.
As it happens one of my cars would be substantially less safe than the Modus in an accident and the other would be less safe than a box of tissues.
If the search facility worked and you could read the original thread that I was responding to then that might put it in context.
Modern cars are designed to absorb and impact where older cars are designed to stay rigid. This is why in an older car, the chances of injury are higher. If you go into sharp edges, solid steering columns it all adds up.
As for extrapolating a conclusion from limited amounts of evidence? I'd much rather go on what I have learnt of my car from it being in wildly changing circumstances in the middle of an accident, and how it fared; rather than the results on paper from a nice little controlled crash in a lab.
For instance, in a real accident it's never going to be a straight on impact, or a front corner. When it's more than one car, they're coming at you from all angles and it's very very scary... or at least it was to me. The modern car is designed to soak up one good hit, and deform. What about the second or third impact? I'd rather risk a little injury for the extra stiffness of an old car.
As said... it's my preference. Other people can and will think differently.
Regards,
Ric
BMWChris said:
I wasn't trying to suggest classics are rubbish or even moderns are better and I'm not quite sure what I have done to illicit such a stern response...
Actually I'm trying to figure out what the point of your post is? You say you are not trying to tell people what to do and you're not looking for an argument so what response are you looking for? I think it's generally accepted that 60's & 70's cars were made of paper, older cars at least had a heavy chassis and modern ones are built with crumple zones. So what? 
BMWChris said:
I'm genuinly interested to know, if a man put a gun to your head and told you to choose one of the cars for a re-run of the experiment, which one would you go for?
You mean would I rather cut my right leg off or my left? Without wishing to be awkward, I’d still prefer to choose neither.Saying that an old car is safer is not necessarily sensible, but saying that a new car is safe is crazy too. Sadly, this isn’t want new car buyers think
RichB said:
BMWChris said:
I wasn't trying to suggest classics are rubbish or even moderns are better and I'm not quite sure what I have done to illicit such a stern response...
Actually I'm trying to figure out what the point of your post is? You say you are not trying to tell people what to do and you're not looking for an argument so what response are you looking for? I think it's generally accepted that 60's & 70's cars were made of paper, older cars at least had a heavy chassis and modern ones are built with crumple zones. So what? I guess I was sharing something that I thought added to the debate. The really strange thing is that I think I agree with the majority of people who have responded - ie old cars, in general, are less safe in an accident than more modern cars but that doesn't mean modern cars are safe (simply less dangerous to their occupants in an accident).
I'll try and explain the point again. I have mentioned it several times though:
In the original thread (which I couldn't find) there were, as I remember it, several people who were convinced that their car was safe becuase it was big and old and therefore, in their view, solidly built. In the original thread (as I remember it) myself and a number of others were putting forward an alternative view - that old cars are less safe in an accident. I felt that the fith Gear experiment, flawed as it was, supported this view.
I'm not going to go over this again as I think I've been clear and have no wish to get into an argument. Especially as I have just finished work for the week and am going home, shortly followed by the pub.
Have a good weekend.
Chris
It seems strange, but old cars tend to be lighter than equivalent moderns. A Mk2 Jag weighs just less than 1.5 tonnes, about the same as a Golf. A big Healey weighs about 1 tonne, a Porsche Boxster 1.45 Tonnes. It's all the safety kit that puts on the weight.
BMWChris said:
This is actually an extension of an old topic but I can't find it as both search functions and or the operator of the search functions seem to be useless!
Anyway,
you may remeber a discussion about the safety of old cars where a number of people were saying that sturdy old cars were safe (Jag Mk2 used as eg) and others (me included) were saying that just because it is big and seems solidly built that doesn't make it safe.
I happend across the last 5 minutes of an old Fith Gear the other day in which they crashed a giant Volvo 740 into a tiny Renault Modus supermini. The Volvo, unlike a Jag Mk2, was desigened with safety in mind and won several safety awards in its day.
I'm sure you can tell where this is going... There can be no doubt that the Volvo driver would have been severely injured or killed and the Renault driver would have probably walked away. Certainly there was no real intrusion into the Modus' footwells, the steering wheel hadn't really moved and the doors opened without much effort. None of these was true of the Volvo...
Anyway,
you may remeber a discussion about the safety of old cars where a number of people were saying that sturdy old cars were safe (Jag Mk2 used as eg) and others (me included) were saying that just because it is big and seems solidly built that doesn't make it safe.
I happend across the last 5 minutes of an old Fith Gear the other day in which they crashed a giant Volvo 740 into a tiny Renault Modus supermini. The Volvo, unlike a Jag Mk2, was desigened with safety in mind and won several safety awards in its day.
I'm sure you can tell where this is going... There can be no doubt that the Volvo driver would have been severely injured or killed and the Renault driver would have probably walked away. Certainly there was no real intrusion into the Modus' footwells, the steering wheel hadn't really moved and the doors opened without much effort. None of these was true of the Volvo...
IMO overall modern cars are safer to have an accident in generally I'd say
. . . but perhaps people who drive classics are less likely to be involved in an accident in their classic because they know they may well get hurt and so will their car
It's the old spike on the steering wheel argument - if everyone had a spike on their steering wheel they would avoid causing or being involved in accidents
IMO modern cars make the driver too insular and the drivers expect the car's electronics to rectify their driving mistakes, they must sorely miss a button to press for the car to drive itself thro' flooded roads and snow
. . . but perhaps people who drive classics are less likely to be involved in an accident in their classic because they know they may well get hurt and so will their car
It's the old spike on the steering wheel argument - if everyone had a spike on their steering wheel they would avoid causing or being involved in accidents
IMO modern cars make the driver too insular and the drivers expect the car's electronics to rectify their driving mistakes, they must sorely miss a button to press for the car to drive itself thro' flooded roads and snow
restoman said:
No doubt the OP will now be selling his MG Midget racecar - it must surely be a death trap . . .
This was the car I was refering offering similar protection as a box of tissues earlier. It has a very sturdy cage so rolling over should be ok but I wouldn't want to run into anything as the cage starts about half way up my thigh! Edited by restoman on Friday 26th March 17:12
If people don't understand why I'm not selling it then please re-read above posts.
BMWChris said:
restoman said:
No doubt the OP will now be selling his MG Midget racecar - it must surely be a death trap . . .
This was the car I was refering offering similar protection as a box of tissues earlier. It has a very sturdy cage so rolling over should be ok but I wouldn't want to run into anything as the cage starts about half way up my thigh! Edited by restoman on Friday 26th March 17:12
If people don't understand why I'm not selling it then please re-read above posts.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff