crashtest Nuovo Crash Test IIHS: Small Overlap Crash (Urto molto disassato)

[Touareg 2.5]

Nuova tornata di Small Overlapp, sta volta ad esser testate sono state le loro "small" cars.

Kia Forte : Poor. Introdotta lo scorso anno, la Forte ottiene un risultato tutt'altro che soddisfacente; come si vede i montanti non compiono il loro dovere andandosi ad intrufolare, complice il cerchione, nell'abitacolo. Questo fa si che il manichino sfiori soltanto gli airbag andando a sbattare contro plancia e montante. Immaginate anche ciò che accade a livello gambe.

TEST DETAILS:

The Kia Forte was redesigned for the 2014 model year.

Structure — The driver's space was seriously compromised by intruding structure. Upper interior intrusion measured 28 cm at the upper hinge pillar and 21-25 cm at the instrument panel. Lower interior intrusion measured as much as 27 cm at the hinge pillar. The steering column was pushed back 6 cm toward the driver.

Restraints/dummy kinematics — The dummy’s head barely contacted the frontal airbag before sliding off the left side as the steering column moved 23 cm to the right, resulting in little airbag cushioning for the chest. Additionally, the seat belt allowed excessive forward excursion of the dummy’s head and torso, contributing to the head hitting the A-pillar. The side curtain airbag deployed but does not have sufficient forward coverage to protect the head from contact with forward side structure and outside objects. The side torso airbag deployed.

Injury measures — Measures from the dummy indicate that injuries to the left thigh would be likely in a crash of this severity. Head injuries from the A-pillar hit would be possible, as would left knee and left lower leg injuries.

Left to right:

• Action shot taken during the small overlap frontal crash test.
  
• The dummy's position in relation to the door frame, steering wheel, and instrument panel after the crash test indicates that the driver's survival space was not maintained well.
  
• During the crash, the dummy's head barely contacted the airbag before sliding off to the left as the steering column moved far to the right. The seat belt allowed the dummy to move too far forward, and the head hit the intruding A-pillar, contributing to a moderate risk of head injury.
  
• Door hinge pillar, driver footwell, and instrument panel intrusion was extensive and contributed to a high risk of injury to the left thigh and a significant risk to the left lower leg.
  

ADDITIONAL FEATURES:

• Side airbags: front and rear head curtain airbags and front seat-mounted torso airbags
  
• Electronic stability control
  
• Antilock brakes
  
• Daytime running lights (optional)
  

----------------------------------

Kia Soul I : Poor. Un'altra Kia, un altro Poor; qui ad esser testata è la precedente generazione di Soul, che sente di certo il peso degli anni. Il montante A va proprio a quel paese piegandosi davvero tantissimo, insieme a tetto e portiera.

TEST DETAILS:

The Kia Soul was introduced in the 2010 model year. Information from Hyundai/Kia indicated the front structural modifications added beginning with 2012 models would have no effect on small overlap frontal test performance; therefore the ratings below apply to all 2010-13 Soul models.

Structure — The driver's space was seriously compromised by intruding structure. Lower interior intrusion measured as much as 29 cm at the lower hinge pillar. Upper interior intrusion measured 22-23 cm at the hinge pillar and instrument panel. The steering column was pushed back 15 cm toward the driver.

Restraints/dummy kinematics — The dummy’s head barely contacted the frontal airbag before sliding off the left side as the steering column moved 14 cm to the right. The side curtain airbag did not deploy, leaving the dummy's head vulnerable to contacts with side structure and outside objects, and the driver's seat tipped forward and toward the B-pillar.

Injury measures — Measures from the dummy indicate that injuries to the left lower leg would be possible in a crash of this severity. The risk of significant injuries to other body regions is low.

Left to right:

• Action shot taken during the small overlap frontal crash test.
  
• The dummy's position in relation to the door frame, steering wheel, and instrument panel after the crash test indicates that the driver's survival space was not maintained well.
  
• During the crash, the dummy's head and torso barely contacted the airbag before sliding off to the left as the steering column moved to the right, and the driver's seat pitched forward and tipped outward.
  
• Door hinge pillar, driver footwell, and instrument panel intrusion was extensive and contributed to a significant risk of injury to the lower left leg.
  

ADDITIONAL FEATURES:

• Side airbags: front and rear head curtain airbags and front seat-mounted torso airbags
  
• Electronic stability control (roll stability control added beginning with 2013 models)
  
• Antilock brakes
  

----------------------------------

Nissan Sentra: Poor. Anche la Sentra è di recente introduzione, ma ciò non basta a farle ottenere un buon risultato nello Small Overlap. Stesso discorso della Forte, con un risultato probabilmente ancor peggiore guardando l'impatto dall'interno.

TEST DETAILS:

The Nissan Sentra was redesigned for the 2013 model year.

Structure — The driver's space was seriously compromised by intruding structure. Lower interior intrusion measured as much as 34 cm at the lower hinge pillar. Upper interior intrusion measured 20-22 cm at the hinge pillar and instrument panel. The steering column was pushed back 8 cm toward the driver.

Restraints/dummy kinematics — The dummy’s head barely contacted the frontal airbag before sliding off the left side as the steering column moved 15 cm to the right, leaving the head vulnerable to contact with forward side structure. The side curtain airbag deployed but does not have sufficient forward coverage to protect the head from contact with forward side structure and outside objects. The side torso airbag deployed.

Injury measures — Measures from the dummy indicate that injuries to the left lower leg, knee, and thigh would be possible in a crash of this severity. The risk of significant injuries to other body regions is low.

Left to right:

• Action shot taken during the small overlap frontal crash test.
  
• The dummy's position in relation to the door frame, steering wheel, and instrument panel after the crash test indicates that the driver's survival space was not maintained well.
  
• During the crash, the dummy's head barely contacted the frontal airbag before sliding off to the left as the steering column moved to the right. The side curtain airbag did not extend far enough forward toward the A-pillar.
  
• Door hinge pillar, driver footwell, and instrument panel intrusion was extensive and contributed to a significant risk of injury to the left lower leg and a moderate risk to the left thigh and knee.
  

ADDITIONAL FEATURES:

• Side airbags: front and rear head curtain airbags and front seat-mounted torso airbags
  
• Electronic stability control
  
• Antilock brakes
  

----------------------------------

Chevrolet Cruze: Marginal. Benhcé non sia di recentissima progettazione, la Cruze riesce ad ottenere un risultato migliore di alcune concorrenti più recenti, mostrando una bontà di progetto.

TEST DETAILS:

The Chevrolet Cruze was introduced in the 2011 model year as a replacement for the Chevrolet Cobalt. Beginning with 2013 Cruze models, the driver frontal airbag was changed to a simpler, "smart" design, characterized by General Motors as having flexible venting technology. The small overlap frontal ratings apply to both airbag designs.

Structure — The driver's space was seriously compromised by intruding structure. Upper interior intrusion measured 19 cm at the upper hinge pillar and instrument panel. Lower interior intrusion measured as much as 20 cm at the hinge pillar. The steering column was pushed back 11 cm toward the driver.

Restraints/dummy kinematics — The dummy’s head barely contacted the frontal airbag before sliding off the left side as the steering column moved 11 cm to the right, leaving the head vulnerable to contact with forward side structure. Additionally, the seat belt allowed excessive forward excursion of the dummy’s head and torso. The side curtain airbag deployed but does not have sufficient forward coverage to protect the head from contact with forward side structure and outside objects. The side torso airbag deployed.

Injury measures — Measures taken from the dummy indicate a low risk of any significant injuries in a crash of this severity.

Left to right:

• Action shot taken during the small overlap frontal crash test.
  
• The dummy's position in relation to the door frame, steering wheel, and instrument panel after the crash test indicates that the driver's survival space was not maintained well.
  
• During the crash, the dummy's head barely contacted the frontal airbag before sliding off to the left as the steering column moved to the right. The seat belt allowed the dummy to move too far forward, as is evident from the gap between the seat back and the dummy's torso. The side curtain airbag did not extend far enough forward toward the A-pillar.
  
• Despite extensive intrusion of the door hinge pillar and instrument panel, risk of injuries to the dummy's legs and feet was low.
  

ADDITIONAL FEATURES:

• Side airbags: front and rear head curtain airbags and front and rear seat-mounted torso airbags
  
• Rollover sensor: designed to deploy the side curtain airbags in the event of an impending rollover
  
• Driver and front passenger knee airbags: separate airbags in the lower instrument panel designed to minimize knee injuries in frontal crashes
  
• Electronic stability control
  
• Antilock brakes
  
• Daytime running lights
  

----------------------------------

Volkswagen Beetle: Marginal. Nonostante l'assenza degli airbag a tendina, ottiene la mediocrità, benché il manichino non centri esattamente l'airbag frontale. Ciò è dovuto ad un intrusione minore nell'abitacolo rispetto a quelle votate con Poor.

TEST DETAILS:

The Volkswagen Beetle was redesigned for the 2012 model year after a one-year absence from the market. Beginning with 2013 models built after March 2013, the side airbags were reprogrammed to deploy in small overlap frontal crashes. Also, the door and B-pillar structure was modified to improve occupant protection (note: information about when a specific vehicle was manufactured is on the certification label typically affixed to the car on or near the driver door).

Structure — The driver space was maintained reasonably well, with maximum intrusion of the lower interior of 17 cm at the lower hinge pillar, and the instrument panel intruded 10-11 cm.

Restraints/dummy kinematics — The dummy’s head barely contacted the frontal airbag before sliding off the left side as the steering column moved 12 cm to the right. Additionally, the seat belt allowed excessive forward excursion of the dummy’s head and torso, contributing to the head hitting the instrument panel. The seat-mounted combination head/torso side airbag did not deploy, despite the reprogramming, leaving the dummy's head vulnerable to contacts with side structure and outside objects.

Injury measures — Measures taken from the dummy indicate a low risk of any significant injuries in a crash of this severity. Head acceleration from the instrument panel hit was low.

Left to right:

• Action shot taken during the small overlap frontal crash test.
  
• The dummy's position in relation to the door frame, steering wheel, and instrument panel after the crash test indicates that the driver's survival space was maintained reasonably well.
  
• During the crash, the dummy's head and torso barely contacted the airbag before sliding off to the left as the steering column moved to the right. Additionally, the seat belt allowed the dummy to move too far forward, as is evident from the gap between the dummy's torso and the seat back, and the head hit the instrument panel.
  
• Intrusion into the driver's space was reasonably well controlled, and risk of injuries to the dummy's legs and feet was low.
  

ADDITIONAL FEATURES:

• None
  

----------------------------------

Chevrolet Sonic: Marginal. Stesso discorso di Cruze e Beetle, con l'aggiunta di airbag a tendina che tardano molto nell'apertura.

[h=2]TEST DETAILS:[/h]The Chevrolet Sonic was introduced in the 2012 model year. The small overlap frontal ratings apply to both the 4-door sedan and hatchback (5-door) versions of the Sonic.

Structure — The driver space was maintained reasonably well, with maximum intrusion of the lower interior of 15 cm, and the upper hinge pillar and instrument panel intruded 8-11 cm.

Restraints/dummy kinematics — The dummy’s head barely contacted the frontal airbag before sliding off the left side as the steering column moved to the right, leaving the head vulnerable to contact with forward side structure. Additionally, the seat belt allowed excessive forward excursion of the dummy’s head and torso. The side curtain airbag deployed too late during the crash, after the head had moved to the left and was already rebounding, outboard of the inflating curtain, leaving the dummy's head vulnerable to contact with side structure and outside objects.

Injury measures — Measures from the dummy indicate that injuries to the left knee and right lower leg would be possible in a crash of this severity. (Note: during the test, part of the injury data from the neck was not obtained, but after the Institute reviewed comparable test data from General Motors, the head/neck injury risk was rated good.)

Left to right:

• Action shot taken during the small overlap frontal crash test.
  
• The dummy's position in relation to the door frame, steering wheel, and instrument panel after the crash test indicates that the driver's survival space was maintained reasonably well.
  
• During the crash, the dummy's head barely contacted the frontal airbag before sliding off to the left, and the side curtain airbag deployed too late (after the time shown in the freeze frame) to offer any head protection, leaving the dummy's head exposed to contact with side structure and outside objects. The seat belt allowed the dummy to move too far forward, as is evident from the gap between the seat back and the dummy's torso.
  
• Even though the knee airbag deployed, intrusion of the instrument panel contributed to a significant risk of injury to the right lower leg and a moderate risk to the left knee.
  

[h=2]ADDITIONAL FEATURES:[/h]

• Side airbags: front and rear head curtain airbags and front and rear seat-mounted torso airbags
  
• Rollover sensor: designed to deploy the side curtain airbags in the event of an impending rollover
  
• Driver and front passenger knee airbags: separate airbags in the lower instrument panel designed to minimize knee injuries in frontal crashes
  
• Electronic stability control
  
• Antilock brakes
  
• Daytime running lights
  

----------------------------------

Scion tC: Acceptable. Nonostante non sia stata premiata dalle vendite, la tC riesce ad ottenere uno dei migliori risultati di questa tornata di crash. Anche se evidentemente il manichino schiva entrambi gli airbag, l'intrusione dei montanti nell'abitacolo non è stata eccessiva.

[h=2]TEST DETAILS:[/h]The Scion tC was redesigned for the 2011 model year. Beginning with 2014 models, the side curtain airbags were reprogrammed to deploy in small overlap frontal crashes to improve occupant protection.

Structure — The driver space was not maintained well, with maximum intrusion of the lower interior of 24 cm at the lower hinge pillar. Upper interior intrusion measured 13-14 cm at the hinge pillar and instrument panel.

Restraints/dummy kinematics — The dummy’s head barely contacted the frontal airbag before sliding off the left side, leaving the head vulnerable to contact with forward structure. The side curtain airbag deployed and had sufficient forward coverage to protect the head from contact with forward side structure and outside objects. The side torso airbag also deployed.

Injury measures — Measures from the dummy indicate that injuries to the left lower leg would be possible in a crash of this severity. The risk of significant injuries to other body regions is low.

Left to right:

• Action shot taken during the small overlap frontal crash test.
  
• The dummy's position in relation to the door frame, steering wheel, and instrument panel after the crash test indicates that the driver's survival space was not maintained well.
  
• During the crash, the dummy's head barely contacted the frontal airbag before sliding off to the left as the steering column moved to the right. The side curtain airbag extended far enough forward toward the A-pillar to protect the head from contact with forward side structure.
  
• Door hinge pillar intrusion contributed to a moderate risk of injury to the left lower leg.
  

[h=2]ADDITIONAL FEATURES:[/h]

• Side airbags: front and rear head curtain airbags and front seat-mounted torso airbags
  
• Driver and front passenger knee airbags: separate airbags in the lower instrument panel designed to minimize knee injuries in frontal crashes
  
• Electronic stability control
  
• Antilock brakes
  

----------------------------------

Hyundai Elantra: Acceptable. Questa è da capire: la vicinanza di progetto con la Forte c'è tutta, ma l'Elantra riesce ad ottenere un buon risultato nel test. Si veda come il manichino riesca a centrare quasi perfettamente gli airbags.

[h=2]TEST DETAILS:[/h]The Hyundai Elantra was redesigned for the 2011 model year.

Structure — The driver space was not maintained well, with maximum intrusion of the lower interior of 22 cm at the lower hinge pillar. Upper interior intrusion measured 18 cm at the upper hinge pillar and 15-17 cm at the instrument panel. The steering column was pushed back 11 cm toward the driver.

Restraints/dummy kinematics — The dummy’s head contacted the frontal airbag but slid off the left side, leaving the head vulnerable to contact with forward structure. Additionally, the seat belt allowed excessive forward excursion of the dummy’s head and torso. The side curtain airbag deployed and had sufficient forward coverage to protect the head from contact with side structure and outside objects. The side torso airbag also deployed.

Injury measures — Measures taken from the dummy indicate a low risk of any significant injuries in a crash of this severity. (Note: during the test, most injury data from the neck were not obtained, but after the Institute considered the low head injury and neck bending moment measures, in combination with good head engagement with the frontal and side airbags, the head/neck injury risk was rated good.)

Left to right:

• Action shot taken during the small overlap frontal crash test.
  
• The dummy's position in relation to the door frame, steering wheel, and instrument panel after the crash test indicates that the driver's survival space was not maintained well.
  
• The dummy’s head contacted the frontal airbag but then slid off the left side. The side curtain airbag extended far enough forward toward the A-pillar to protect the head from contact with forward side structure. However, the seat belt allowed the dummy to move too far forward.
  
• Despite considerable intrusion by the door hinge pillar and instrument panel, risk of injuries to the dummy's legs and feet was low.
  

[h=2]ADDITIONAL FEATURES:[/h]

• Side airbags: front and rear head curtain airbags and front seat-mounted torso airbags
  
• Electronic stability control
  
• Antilock brakes
  
• Daytime running lights
  

----------------------------------

Ford Focus: Acceptable. La Focus nell'impatto perde tutto, pure la ruota, ma ottiene anch'essa un risultato non da cestinare. Bene dentro, nonostante un po' di parti volanti.

[h=2]TEST DETAILS:[/h]The Ford Focus was redesigned for the 2012 model year. The small overlap frontal ratings also apply to the 4-door hatchback version of the Focus, also redesigned for the 2012 model year.

Structure — The driver space was not maintained well, with maximum intrusion of the lower interior of 16 cm at the lower hinge pillar. Upper interior intrusion measured as much as 18 cm at the upper hinge pillar. The steering column was pushed back 7 cm toward the driver.

Restraints/dummy kinematics — The dummy’s head contacted the frontal airbag but slid off the left side, leaving the head vulnerable to contact with forward side structure. The side curtain airbag deployed but does not have sufficient forward coverage to protect the head from contact with forward side structure and outside objects. The side torso airbag also deployed.

Injury measures — Measures taken from the dummy indicate a low risk of any significant injuries in a crash of this severity.

Left to right:

• Action shot taken during the small overlap frontal crash test.
  
• The dummy's position in relation to the door frame, steering wheel, and instrument panel after the crash test indicates that the driver's survival space was not maintained well.
  
• The dummy’s head contacted the frontal airbag but then slid off the left side. The side curtain airbag did not extend quite far enough forward toward the A-pillar to protect the head from contact with forward side structure.
  
• Despite considerable intrusion by the door hinge pillar, risk of injuries to the dummy's legs and feet was low.
  

[h=2]ADDITIONAL FEATURES:[/h]

• Side airbags: front and rear head curtain airbags and front seat-mounted torso airbags
  
• Electronic stability control
  
• Antilock brakes
  

----------------------------------

Dodge Dart: Acceptable. Ecco la più attesa dagli Autopareristi, la Dart. L'impatto provoca anche qui la perdita della ruota che fa da perno staccando la portiera (o quantomeno il rivestimento esterno + il montante), cosa che comunque non intacca l'ottimo funzionamento degli airbag a tendina (sticazzi come parte la maniglia ). Dentro, come detto ottimo è il contenimento da parte degli airbags. Si comporta meglio di Focus.

[h=2]TEST DETAILS:[/h]The Dodge Dart was introduced in the 2013 model year. Two tests of the Dart were conducted because electrical power to the onboard (car interior) cameras was interrupted during the first test. In the second Dart test, the driver door opened when the hinges tore away from the door frame. In the first test, the hinges were severely damaged and the lower one tore away, but the door stayed shut. In each test, the Dart’s safety belt and front and side curtain airbags appeared to adequately protect the dummy’s head and upper body, and measures from the dummy showed little risk of head and chest injuries. As a result, the Institute averaged results of both tests and downgraded the Dart’s restraints and kinematics rating to marginal because doors shouldn’t open in a crash. Injury and structural ratings are based on both tests.

Structure — The driver space was maintained reasonably well in the two tests, taken together. Maximum intrusion of the lower interior was 21 cm at the lower hinge pillar in the first test, but much higher at 35 cm in the second test. All other intrusion measures were very similar between the two tests (varying by no more than 2 cm), with upper interior intrusion measuring 9-11 cm at the hinge pillar and instrument panel in the first test and 10-12 cm in the second test.

Restraints/dummy kinematics — The driver door opened in the second test, which shouldn't happen because the driver could be partly or completely ejected from the vehicle. Still, in the second test, the dummy’s head loaded the frontal airbag, which stayed in front of the dummy until rebound. (Camera views from outside the car suggest that dummy movement was very similar in the first test.) In both tests, the side curtain airbag deployed but does not have sufficient forward coverage to protect the head from contact with forward side structure and outside objects. The side torso airbag also deployed in both tests.

Injury measures — Measures from the dummies in the two tests, taken together, indicate a low risk of any significant injuries in a crash of this severity.

Left to right:

• Action shot taken during the second of two small overlap frontal crash tests.
  
• Aside from the intruded door frame when the door hinges were sheared off in the second test (shown), the dummy's position in relation to the steering wheel and instrument panel after the crash test indicates that the driver's survival space was maintained reasonably well.
  
• The frontal and side curtain airbags worked reasonably well together to protect the head from injury in the crash test (second test shown). Still, the curtain airbag should extend farther forward toward the A-pillar to protect the head from contact with forward side structure and outside objects if crash circumstances were to differ slightly.
  
• Despite extensive intrusion and partial tearing of the door hinge pillar in the second test, risk of injury was moderate and limited to the left lower leg. The hinge pillar intruded far less in the first test, and risk of injuries to the legs and feet was low. Averaged together, injury risk remained low.
  

[h=2]ADDITIONAL FEATURES:[/h]

• Side airbags: front and rear head curtain airbags, front seat-mounted torso airbags, and rear seat-mounted pelvis airbags
  
• Driver and front passenger knee airbags: separate airbags in the lower instrument panel designed to minimize knee injuries in frontal crashes
  
• Electronic stability control
  
• Antilock brakes
  
• Programmable daytime running lights
  

Le uniche vetture della categoria ad ottenere Good sono state, mesi fa, le rinnovate Civic.

Modificato 9 Agosto 2013 da Touareg 2.5

[Wilhem275]

Troppo forte 'sto test

Mi ha fatto schiattare nella Sonic il windowbag che si apre... con la testa dal lato sbagliato

Inquietanti le Kia non tanto per la struttura esterna, ma per quanto cavolo finisca in abitacolo l'intera plancia...

[J-Gian]

Mi ha fatto schiattare nella Sonic il windowbag che si apre... con la testa dal lato sbagliato

Mi sono capottato dal ridere, dopo che ti sei scornato il montante, quando hai la testa fuori dal vetro ti arriva pure la mazzata dell'airbag a tendina...

[Touareg 2.5]

Mi sono capottato dal ridere, dopo che ti sei scornato il montante, quando hai la testa fuori dal vetro ti arriva pure la mazzata dell'airbag a tendina...

io lì per lì credevo non ne avesse airbag a tendina, concentrandomi un po' sulla zona muso! Non appena ho visto l'impatto dall'interno son saltato in aria

[Alce_NeroWRC]

Questo nuovo crash test comunque mi fa accapponare la pelle...auto che consideravo (e forse tutti consideravamo) molto sicure, si stanno rivelando delle trappole...questo fatto ha una sua logica, dato che prima il test era fatto secondo altri parametri che imponevano l'altezza dell'asticella sensibilimente più in basso rispetto a quello che la pone questo nuovo standard...ad ogni modo mi fa una certa impressione!!! Porca paletta!!!

[nubironaSW]

Mi sono capottato dal ridere, dopo che ti sei scornato il montante, quando hai la testa fuori dal vetro ti arriva pure la mazzata dell'airbag a tendina...

[Touareg 2.5]

Ci si ride ma la cosa potrebbe causare non pochi problemi, in un urto reale.

Io spero che EuroNcap introduca presto questa tipologia di crash, insieme a quello riguardante lo schiacciamento del tetto.

[Touareg 2.5]

Aggiunte le foto e le descrizioni degli impatti.

Non avevo mica capito ciò che era successo al montante della Dart .

[braccobaldo]

la smart non è ancora stata testata?

[Roger66]

la smart non è ancora stata testata?