When did modern crumple zones start?
-
Right, then...
We’ve seen the 1959 v 2009 crash video. My question is, how old of a car could I buy and reasonably expect to have modern crumple zones? 2000? ‘90’s?
-
@pyramidhat mmmm I think the concept started coming aorund in the late 90s, but only got good about late 2000s
-
@pyramidhat
I know the 914 had one
-
@pyramidhat Volvo and Mercedes have been using crumple zones since the 60's
-
@pyramidhat According to Wikipedia (i know), the first car designed with crumple zones was the 1959 Mercedes W111 "Fintail." I think I've read that Volvo adopted them fairly early on, maybe with the 122? 1961 I think? I know the MGB has some degree of crumple zones, and it was introduced in 1962.
-
@pyramidhat Crumple zones have been around for a while but to begin approching modern safety I'd say mid 00's and up.
Of course some manufacturers have been more interested in safety then others so a 90s volvo is a modern marvel compared to an EG civic. As shown by fatality statistics, weight plays a big role too, an economy box can be safe in the lab but still get mulched by a King Ranch
-
@pyramidhat intentionally, late 1950s, unintentionally (in terms of reinforcing the passenger compartment for a safety cell, but leaving the front and back clips flimsy, which had some crumple zone like effect), mid 1930s.
-
@pyramidhat Meh, crumple shmumple. If it doesn't bend, how can you get hurt?
-
@pyramidhat They started getting good early-mid 90s.
Chrysler vans like my 94 for example blew away crash standards to like 1999 model year.
Realistically it comes to vehicle. -
When did modern crumple zones start?
Usually at the point of impact. But I'm not an engineer........
-
@pyramidhat I’d say anything late ‘00s and up is reasonably safe. The biggest things that’s moved on since then is cars being prepped for the small overlap crash test. This had manufacturers move some of the crash structures further outward to accommodate that test but broader frontal impact protection is largely similar.
This is why I have my ‘09 128i. Modern enough to be reasonably safe, old enough to be a mostly analogue driving experience and not to have turbos, outdated infotainment or too many electronic nannies that can’t be disabled.
-
@distraxi They had the basic idea in the '30s - reinforce the passenger compartment to prevent intrusion in a collision, they just didn't have the knowledge yet regarding the need to also cushion the impact in addition to having a safety cell.
(Apologies for the music)
they had like half the idea, or, maybe more like 1/3 the idea, given no seatbelts
-
@pyramidhat It's less the idea of crumple zones themselves and more the availability of modern materials and building techniques. Mid to late 2000's is as far back as I would go. Mass use of CAD and modeling is what really helped increase car design safety.
-
@pyramidhat There are different technologies that have been developed that comprise the modern design. As others have noted, the basic crumple zone was developed quite a long time ago, but it mainly worked either in the rear for front engine cars (see @EssExTee Volvo/Mercedes photo) or the front for mid/rear engine cars (See @gmporschenut-also-a-fan-of-hondas 914 post.)
Other innovations took some time to become common. It's surprising how long it took for the collapsible steering column to become widespread. I don't know if it's true, but I've heard that a front impact in a Corvair can drive the steering column into the driver. With no engine in the front, the collapse can have unintended effects.
It wasn't until the late 90s that most cars were designed for the engine mounts to break in a heavy front impact, allowing the engine to drop so the front could collapse without pushing the engine block into the cabin.
I had a 1982 Dodge Aries wagon, and it was designed more to resist impact than to absorb impact. I was rear-ended by an early 90s Honda Accord. The Honda went from Accord to accordion, with the front collapsing significantly. The impact knocked the rubber trim piece loose on my bumper with no other damage.
-
@distraxi the Traction's body shell was a marvel, and made of lots of good quality steel. One of the reasons so many of the things are still around.
-
@roadkilled the reason cars aren't built like that anymore is that the energy from the collision HAS to go somewhere, so a lot of shock gets transferred to the occupants.
-
cars from the 70s with really really long hoods?
-
@essextee I remember reading about the Lada Niva/4x4 being retested by the EURO-NCAP in 2010 or 2012 (it was some time in the early 10s) when it received a driver's side airbag for some export markets.... It predictably scored poorly, but for the reason you mentioned. It's unibody shell is remarkably rigid and strong, no crumple zones, and the interior is hard, angular, and has lots of metal close to the surface. You aren't very likely to be crushed to death in a crash involving a Niva, but you'll bounce around the still-intact passenger compartment like a pinball in a bonus round. Until you don't bounce any more...
-
Seems like different automakers took different approaches to safety over the years. Some are extremely proactive and crash test to protect for real world scenarios, while a lot of others seem to design to the test. A couple different anecdotes:
Back in the early 2010s, NHTSA and IIHS introduced the small-overlap crash tests where instead of crashing into a barrier with 50% of the front bumper, they used 25%. This being a new test, almost no cars on sale at the time were designed for it. Many cars and SUVs absolutely got destroyed in this test, yet somehow the aging Volvo XC90 aced it despite being designed nearly a decade before. What this tells me is that they're not just designing to ace the test at the time, but to actual safety in actual crashes.
Years and years later, IIHS started testing passenger-side small offset as well as the driver. Yet again, many cars that were previously acing the (driver side) small overlap were failing miserably. The automakers were adding structural bracing to the driver side only to pass the test, but for various reasons (likely cost, mass, etc) were not doing so on the passenger side.
Going further back, I remember a Top Gear segment where they crashed a 1980s SAAB 900 (pretty old design at the time, with its origins in the 99 of the 1960s and 70s) and a similar age but more modern design BMW E30 3-series by dropping both on their roofs. The BMW crushed down to almost nothing while the SAAB stayed relatively in tact.
-
@pyramidhat They started getting popular to the point that car companies were advertising them, in the 90s. I remember when the OG Nissan Altima came out, all the ads were pitching it as a cheap mainstream car with Lexus-like build quality and luxury brand rivaling features, and they featured crumple zones in some of the ads.
-
@essextee I only had a short time to respond before I had to head to work. I should have added that it was only my youth at the time that kept me from being injured in the collision.
There was another factor. The Dodge had old-fashioned metal bumpers mounted on shock absorbing posts. They were ugly and didn't blend in with the body well, but they did absorb a lot of energy.
-
@texturedsoyprotein Volvo was advertising them in the '70s
-
@ranwhenparked Right, and Volvo built its reputation on safety. I'm not saying that Nissan originated the crumple zone ad in 1993. Crumple zones became common on higher-end Euro cars starting in the mid/late 80s, and by the mid/late 90s they had become common on most mainstream cars. When Nissan first introduced the Altima, even though it was effectively replacing the Stanza as an intermediate step between the Sentra & Maxima, it was pitched as a bargain price "luxury" car with the build quality, features & safety of actual luxury cars. Crumple zones being one such luxury feature.
