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

[indeciso88]

A meno che non avessero la palla di cristallo per prevedere le future normative....direi di si

dai volevo è un passo avanti a tutti in sicurezza passiva, e non ci vuole la palla di cristallo, fifth gear un lustro fa parlò proprio di questo tipo di impatto e mostró come un rinforzo laterale (che misero loro stessi aftermarket su una vecchia astra) potesse fare la differenza tra la vita e la morte in questo genere di impatti

Sarebbe costruttivo evitare di tirare in ballo CONTINUAMENTE sta storia del longherone Volvo. E' stato detto e ridetto nel corso degli ultimi 2 anni. Vi sono 2 scuole di pensiero.

Cioè? Mi dai il link alla discussione per favore? Io non ne so nulla

[CoreVD]

Applies to 2013-15 models

Overall evaluation

Structure and safety cage

Injury measures

Head/neck

Chest

Hip/thigh

Lower leg/foot

Restraints and dummy kinematics

Chi è capace di tradurmi/spiegarmi queste classi?

Cioè? Mi dai il link alla discussione per favore? Io non ne so nulla

Esattamente quello che ha detto TonyH, poco più o poco meno, ripetuto in vari topic... Non ricordo quali ma quando si parla di sicurezza, ovviamente, esce il nome Volvo... E qualcuno che afferma che SE non avesse avuto quel componente fatto in QUEL modo, la Volvo citata in quel momento avrebbe fatto male...

[CoreVD]

Lillo,

...

Poi, se per il tuo equilibrio psicofisico, visto il risultato deludente delle 500L vuoi pensare che in fca siano i soliti incompetenti che non sanno lavorare..

Per me sei libero di pensarlo. Tanto i soldi per le auto tue mica te li dò io

Non ci credo. Mi sta istigando. Io ce l'ho messa tutta per essere gentile e calmo.

Avevo anche specificato che non me ne frega nulla del tifo proVolvo (quello antiFiat non c'entra una mazza, ma vedo che è moda "abbassare la testa ed attaccare a caso"). Non riesci proprio a comprendere che uno ti chieda cortesemente di non tirare in ballo la solita solfa, vabè, , uff.

[indeciso88]

Ma volvo a suo tempo perché avrebbe fatto il longherone ad esse? Per motivi estetici?

[Wilhem275]

A meno che non avessero la palla di cristallo per prevedere le future normative....direi di si

Diciamo che, almeno per Volvo, non sarebbe la prima volta tendenzialmente sono loro ad alzare l'asticella.

[Ospite]

Lo small overlap crash é stato introdotto nel 2012. Tutte quelle uscite,quindi progettate, prima non sono attrezzate. Se lo passano é per culo ,come volvo.

La Golf VII ad esempio è uscita nel 2012

[TonyH]

Io veramente volevo dare un contributo un filo più approfondito. Ma noto oramai che sono sempre meno graditi. Quindi me ne scuso, e chiedo a qualche mods di cancellare i miei ultimi post qua dentro in quanto inopportuni

[stev66]

Boni...

Sicuramente volvo è molto attenta alla sicurezza, ma Volvo come tutte le Case progetta sulle norme di sicurezza e sui crash test vigenti al momento del progetto.

Volvo può pigliarsi margini maggiori, e questi possono pagare in certi casi.

Ma anche il caso stesso a volte gioca a favore. La Ritmo nel 1978 passò i crash test USA meglio dell'Audi 100 coeva per la presenza della gomma di scorta nel cofano motore , elemento ereditato da 128 .

[Touareg 2.5]

Certo il risultato è senza ombra di dubbio pessimo, senza se, senza ma, senza appello ma c'è un'altra tonnellata di autovetture più o meno recenti che han fallito miseramente lo small overlapp (vedi vecchia Kia Soul, e tante small sedan di successo in USA, coeve a 500L); aggiungiamo che è in vendita anche da noi in quantità ingenti, ed ecco servito lo sgomento generale.

Di certo, restando dentro al gruppozzo, sarebbe giusto prendere esempio quantomeno dalla "piccola" Dart, che pur ottenendo Acceptable, fece meglio della stravenduta Focus.

Fiat dovrebbe davvero vivamente correre ai ripari e mostrare che è in grado di sistemare una situazione assolutamente poco degna, come fatto in precedenza da Mercedes con la scorsa Classe C.

Penso di essere stato abbastanza oggettivo.

- - - - - - - - - - AGGIUNTA al messaggio già esistente - - - - - - - - - -

Intanto vi sto preparando il resoconto completo di questa tornata di small overlapps con tanto di scheda risultato e video.

Innanzitutto ottimo il risultato di Countryman, l'unica a ricevere Good; male il Juke e quella teiera della Leaf.

[Touareg 2.5]

Ecco qui

Fiat 500L : Poor. Tecnincamente abbiamo un arretramento dei montanti dai 24cm in su, mentre il piantone dello sterzo arretra di 14cm in direzione guidatore. Nonostante un'iniziale contatto con l'airbag, successivamente la testa del dummy impatta, anche se non violentemente con il montante A. Efficienti gli airbags a tendina.

Rischi di ferite a fianchi e gambe sono praticamente certi.

Structure

The driver's space was seriously compromised by intruding structure. Upper interior intrusion measured 24-28 cm at the upper hinge pillar and instrument panel. Lower interior intrusion measured as much as 25 cm at the hinge pillar. The steering column was pushed back 14 cm toward the driver.

Injury measures

Measures from the dummy indicate that injuries to the left hip would be likely in a crash of this severity and injuries to both lower legs would be possible. Head acceleration from the A-pillar hit was low.

Restraints and dummy kinematics

The dummy’s head contacted the frontal airbag but slid off the left side as the steering column moved 13 cm to the right, contributing to the head hitting the A-pillar. 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.

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

Mazda 5: Poor. Anche la 5, non più in vendita in Italia non se la cava nello Small Overlapp, con la ruota che, spinta con forza verso l'abitacolo, permette al palo di impattare contro il montante A. All'interno volano pezzi ovunque e l'airbag guidatore non fa praticamente nulla, quello a tendina nemmeno si apre e le intrusioni dei montanti sono ben superiori a quelle registrate su 500L.

Ha ottenuto il peggior risultato di questa tornata di test.

Structure

The driver's space was seriously compromised by intruding structure. Lower interior intrusion measured as much as 35 cm at the lower hinge pillar. Upper interior intrusion measured 34 cm at the hinge pillar and 25-27 cm at the instrument panel. The steering column was pushed back 15 cm toward the driver.

Injury measures

Measures from the dummy indicate that injuries to the left thigh and left lower leg would be likely in a crash of this severity and injuries to the left knee and right lower leg would be possible. Head injury risk from the instrument panel hit is low.

Restraints and dummy kinematics

During the crash, the driver door unlatched, which shouldn't happen because the driver could be partly or completely ejected from the vehicle. 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. Additionally, the seat belt allowed excessive forward excursion of the dummy’s head and torso, contributing to the head hitting the instrument panel. The side curtain airbag did not deploy, leaving the dummy's head vulnerable to contacts with side structure and outside objects.

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

Nissan Juke: Poor.Non per voler difendere l'indifendibile, ma anche il diffusissimo crossover di Nissan, nella sua edizione pre facelift, ha fatto male, con intrusioni nella parte superiori di 12cm superiori a quelle di 500L (guardate un po' dov'è arrivata la ruota...); nella parte superiore invece si comporta praticamente come l'italiana.

Male l'airbag guidatore, bene l'airbag a tendina che anche qui non lascia che la testa del guidatore tocchi il montante B.

StructureThe driver's space was seriously compromised by intruding structure. Lower interior intrusion measured as much as 37 cm at the lower hinge pillar, and the door sill was pushed in laterally 19 cm toward the driver. Upper interior intrusion measured 24-27 cm at the hinge pillar and instrument panel. The steering column was pushed back 10 cm.

Injury measures

Measures from the dummy indicate that injuries to the left lower leg would be likely in a crash of this severity and injuries to the left knee would be possible.

Restraints and dummy kinematics

The dummy’s head barely contacted the frontal airbag before sliding off the left side as the steering column moved 17 cm to the right, leaving the head vulnerable to contact with forward side structure and allowing little airbag cushioning for the chest. 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.

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

Nissan Leaf: Poor. Nissan ha fatto tombola con la Leaf, che per poco non eguaglia il pessimo risultato di MZ5. Come si può vedere il palo arriva sino al montante A, accartocciandolo in malo modo; dentro il risultato è praticamente un disastro, con intrusioni generali tra i 35 ed i 40Cm.

The Nissan Leaf was introduced in the 2011 model year and re-engineered beginning with 2013 models. The car is a plug-in battery-electric vehicle with no gasoline or diesel engine to help power the car. The EPA city and highway values listed below are based on a comparison of the energy content of a kW-hr of electricity vs. a gallon of gasoline.

Structure

The driver's space was seriously compromised by intruding structure. Lower interior intrusion measured as much as 40 cm at the lower hinge pillar. Upper interior intrusion measured 35 cm at the hinge pillar and as much as 36 cm at the instrument panel. The parking brake pedal was pushed in 31 cm toward the driver, and the steering column was pushed back 9 cm.

Injury measures

Measures from the dummy indicate that injuries to the left knee and left lower leg would be likely in a crash of this severity and injuries to the left thigh would be possible.

Restraints and 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, leaving the head vulnerable to contact with forward side structure and allowing little airbag cushioning for the chest. 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.

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

Hyundai Veloster: Marginal. Come tutte le Hyundai non recentissime, Veloster si accartoccia causando intrusioni rilevanti all'interno dell'abitacolo, con possibilità di traumi alle gambe del guidatore. All'interno, dopo un iniziale contatto tra testa ed airbag, il volante si sposta violentemente verso destra, ma tutti gli altri seppur non al meglio riescono a compiere il loro compito.

Ottiene Marginal poiché altre parti del corpo non dovrebbero essere a rischio.

The Hyundai Veloster was introduced in the 2012 model year. The sporty hatchback features an unusual door configuration, with the passenger side having two conventionally hinged doors and the driver side only a single door.Structure

The driver space was not maintained well. Upper interior intrusion measured 16-18 cm at the upper hinge pillar and instrument panel. Maximum intrusion of the lower interior was 21 cm at the hinge pillar, and the door sill was pushed in laterally 13 cm toward the driver. The steering column was pushed back 9 cm.

Injury measures

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

Restraints and 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, 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.

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

Scion xB: Marginal. Benché non gli rimanga molto tempo sul mercato USA, il furgonetto di Scion ottiene un risultato discreto nel test dovuto ad un'intrusione esagerata nella parte inferiore dell'abitacolo. All'interno l'airbag si sposta ma il dummy viene comunque contenuto discretamente.

The Scion xB was redesigned for the 2008 model year. Beginning with 2014 models built after February 2014, the side curtain airbags were reprogrammed to deploy in frontal crashes and changes were made to better control the stability of the steering column to improve occupant protection in small overlap crashes (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 not maintained well. Maximum intrusion of the lower interior was 29 cm at the lower hinge pillar. Upper interior intrusion measured 16-17 cm at the hinge pillar and instrument panel.

Injury measures

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

Restraints and 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 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.

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

Toyota GT 86/Scion FR-S/Subaru BRZ: Acceptable. La vettura testata è quella marchio Scion, ma il test è estendibile alle altre gemelle.

Il risultato non è degno di nota, causa intrusioni (ove prende Marginal), ma grazie ai rischi contenuti per il dummy ottiene un qualcosina in più.

Inefficaci gli airbag a tendina a causa del cielo dell'abitacolo che si stacca e li ostruisce.

Top Safety Pick, grazie ai 4 Good nelle altre categorie di crash test.

Structure

The driver space was not maintained well, with maximum intrusion of the lower interior of 31 cm at the lower hinge pillar. Upper interior intrusion measured as much as 16-18 cm at the instrument panel and hinge pillar. The door sill was pushed in laterally 20 cm toward the driver.

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.

Restraints and 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,

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

Mitsubishi Lancer: Acceptable. Quando le vecchiette fanno bene. Anche la Lancer ottiene acceptable, con intrusioni nella media (quelal a piegarsi è la portiere) ma un Marginal nell'efficienza airbag dovuta a quello guidatore che insieme al volante va un po' dove gli pare; bene quelli a tendina.

Certo fa un po' impressione vedere la minigonna cadere così

Top Safety Pick, grazie ai 4 Good nelle altre categorie di crash test.

The Mitsubishi Lancer was redesigned for the 2008 model year. Frontal ratings are assigned by the Institute based on a test conducted by Mitsubishi as part of frontal crash test verification. The frontal ratings also apply to the hatchback version of the Lancer, known as the Sportback, beginning with 2010 models.Structure

The driver space was maintained reasonably well, with maximum intrusion of the lower interior of 21 cm at the lower hinge pillar. Upper interior intrusion measured 11-14 cm at the hinge pillar and instrument panel.

Injury measures

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

Restraints and 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 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, and the driver's seat tipped forward and toward the B-pillar. The side torso airbag deployed.

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

Ford C-MAX Hybrid: Acceptable. Come la Focus da cui deriva, C-MAX ottiene Acceptable con uno dei risultati migliori di questa tornata (nonostante perda ruota, finestrino e rivestimento esterno della portiera ). Comunque la più grande pecca sta nel lavoro degli airbags: quello guidatore scappa via praticamente subito e sta volta nemmeno gli airbag a tendina han compiuto al massimo il proprio lavoro.

Top Safety Pick, grazie ai 4 Good nelle altre categorie di crash test.

The Ford C-Max was introduced in the 2013 model year. The C-Max is a hybrid with both a gasoline engine and electric motor. These ratings apply only to C-Max Hybrid models and not C-Max Energi models (the latter can be charged by connecting the vehicle with an electrical cord to a household outlet).Structure

The driver space was not maintained well, with maximum intrusion of the upper interior of 15-16 cm at the upper hinge pillar and instrument panel. Maximum intrusion of the lower interior was 14 cm at the hinge pillar. The steering column was pushed back 7 cm toward the driver.

Injury measures

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

Restraints and 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 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,

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

Chevrolet Volt: Acceptable: A differenza della rivale LEAF, la Range Extender di Chevrolet ottiene un buon risultato: le intrusioni sono minime e il volante si sposta, anche se di poco, permettendo comunque una decente protezione (motivo per cui non ottiene di più)

Top Safety Pick +: grazie a 4 Good negli altri test e ai sistemi di sicurezza presenti.

The Chevrolet Volt was introduced in the 2011 model year. The car is a plug-in battery-electric/gasoline hybrid, featuring an electric-only mode with a range of 38 miles for 2014 models according to the EPA. After the electric-only mode ends, the gas engine kicks in to power the vehicle. Estimated gas mileage in this mode is listed in the specifications below.Beginning with 2014 models, the front structure was modified to improve occupant protection in small overlap frontal crashes.

Structure

The driver space was maintained reasonably well, with maximum intrusion of the upper interior of 11 cm at the upper hinge pillar and instrument panel. Lower interior intrusion measured 10 cm at the hinge pillar.

Injury measures

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

Restraints and 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 side structure and outside objects.

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

Mini Countryman: Good. L'unica ad ottenere il massimo dei risultati è stata la Countryman, che pur smembrandosi in mille pezzi riesce a mantenere praticamente intatta la cellulla dell'abitacolo. Il montante A non viene praticamente intaccato, le intrusioni inferiori ai 13Cm e gli airbag svolgono bene il loro compito.

Top Safety Pick: 5 good e niente plus... questa me la devono spiegare, soprattutto se rapportato alla Volt

Structure

The driver space was maintained reasonably well, with maximum intrusion of the lower interior of 13 cm at the lower hinge pillar. Upper interior intrusion measured 7-9 cm at the hinge pillar and instrument panel.

Injury measures

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

Restraints and dummy kinematics

The dummy’s movement was well controlled. The dummy’s head loaded the frontal airbag, which stayed in front of the dummy until rebound. 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.

Modificato 31 Luglio 2014 da Touareg 2.5