Japenese Crash Test Results for Legnum ST

[Kitty's VR4]

http://www.nasva.go.jp/mamoru/english/2000/e00f042.html

2.Evaluation of the 6 ranks
AAA:The risk of serious injury to both the head and the chest is very low.
AA:The risk of serious injury to either the head or the chest is very low and the risk of serious injury to the other is low.
A:The risk of serious injury to both the head and the chest is low.
B:The risk of serious injury to either the head or the chest is low and there is somewhat of a risk of serious injury to the other.
C:There is somewhat of a risk of serious injury to both the head and the chest.
D:There is a risk of serious injury to either the head or the chest or to both of them.

 

[Scottie]

Good find!

Stagea, Forester and Legacy all scored max points!

Wierd how the rating of the Merc was so low?

 

[Kitty's VR4]

CVR4 find, posted for the information of OzVR4 members

Did some digging round the Japanese safety site, tested in 1997 on series 1, after this test appears Mitsubishi changed passenger side airbag structure, implemented August 1998 to increase front passenger safety, though no further tests were conducted on legnums before they ceased production in 2002.

Appears frontal crash test was @ 55kph

Current Australian Standards frontal tests @ 48kph

There was no side impact testing done on Legnums

 

[Kitty's VR4]

Then you can always compare it to a VB Crumpledoore Commonwhore Commodore @ 100kph, bet this will scare the hell out of you as far as a result, might make you think about getting into any old commodores

Tailshaft removed + 300kg of sand bags to simulate weight of occupants (includes 1 dummy) no other mods

 

[unclepaulie]

WHOA!!!!!! **** that

didnt realsie crumple zone involved the entire car lol

 

[smohekey]

Paul, I love your sig image. So true!

 

[Mortz]

That Commodore crash video is INSANE! There's barely even a boot left after it's all said and done. Thats bloody scary.

 

[unclepaulie]

Paul, I love your sig image. So true!

lol about that....apparently it was only u and me mate, sig is gone lol

 

[Kitty's VR4]

Thanks Paul for considering the female members.

 

[Rasi]

Yeh, found that data back in May

http://www.ozvr4.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5717&highlight=nasva&page=8

didn't think of making a separate post for it tho.

 

[Tom]

Omg that commodore video is nuts!

Go0d find with the crash results guys

 

[SiliconAngel]

As I heard a safety engineer for volvo say once, no car in the world can guarantee the safety of its occupants in a crash with a stationary object (such as a concrete wall) exceeding just 80km/h. Doesn't matter how you design the crumple zones, how good the airbags are, 80km/h to 0 in zero seconds will almost certainly equal dead squishy things.

Pop quiz - if you're doing 100km/h on a mountain road and you crest what you thought was a gentle rise to see a stationary truck 20m in front of you (yes, three or four car lengths, not nearly enough to slow down) and a car travelling toward you in the opposite lane, what do you do to maximise your chances of survival? Aim for the truck, aim for the oncoming car, or pitch it over the edge?

 

[bradc]

I'd imagine the truck assuming you have the reaction time to help slow you down a bit. Depends on how fast the car is going and how big the truck is though I guess. Pitching it over the edge is open ended too, how far is the drop down?

 

[bogan bob]

Good to know the kind of safety our cars afford, good post Kat!

trev, id speed up and hit the car coming the other way, from memory, you will come off a lot better (dont know how the other occupants in the otehr car will fare though )

 

[ygoslo]

That Commodore destruction is a thing of beauty.

 

[BuzzPuppy]

Maybe the tailshaft in the crumpledore is structural?

 

[Mortz]

Trev, i'd go for the truck and try go on a little bit of an angle...assuming I can slam the brakes and slow down a bit. Hitting the car going on the oncoming will be worse as both cars will have to decelerate somehow and he could be going pretty fast. Also, if you decide to hit the oncoming car chances are you'll kill more people than just yourself.

 

[king_panther]

Pop quiz - if you're doing 100km/h on a mountain road and you crest what you thought was a gentle rise to see a stationary truck 20m in front of you (yes, three or four car lengths, not nearly enough to slow down) and a car travelling toward you in the opposite lane, what do you do to maximise your chances of survival? Aim for the truck, aim for the oncoming car, or pitch it over the edge?

Geeeez, that's easy. Haven't you ever watched Malcolm ?

 

[SiliconAngel]

Haha you idiot Brad

The answer is, even with the best reaction time you're only likely to shave a tiny amount off your speed before hitting the stationary truck, so the survival rate is extremely low (as in almost certain death). If you hit the oncoming car you're not just hitting a stationary object at 90-100km/h, you have the combined force of BOTH vehicles, so essentially equal to hitting a stationary object at 180-200km/h. Likelihood of survival, zero. Pitching over the side is the unknown quantity - you're uncertain what the drop is like or what awaits you at the bottom, however the likelihood of survival is vastly improved over the almost certain death that awaits in either of the other scenarios - at least you can entertain the POSSIBILITY of survival!

The point I'm making is, the worst possible scenario is hitting an oncoming vehicle as you have the combined force of both vehicles - even two cars having a head-on at a relatively sleepy 40km/h is like hitting something stationary at 80, almost certainly fatal. Hitting a solid concrete barrier or the back of a stationary truck is preferable.

However, if you find yourself approaching a significant (ie concrete barrier, car, truck etc, not an animal unless its bigger than a cow) stationary obstacle at speed and the only other option is the unknown quantity of pitching off the side of the road even if it includes light poles, trees or even houses, your chance of survival substantially increases by doing whatever is necessary to avoid the large stationary object on the road - take your chances in the trees, fences, lightpoles, yes even drive through a house - a brick wall is a hell of a lot more forgiving than the tail end of a stationary truck.

And whatever you do, never, EVER try a handbrake or hard turn thinking sliding in sideways will be more forgiving - cars aren't designed to withstand high-speed side or even rear impact, they're designed to maximise the chances of survival for the occupants through front impacts, so if you MUST hit something, hit it with the nose of the car.

 

[ygoslo]

But hitting something sideways would look cooler. Did you consider that?