Car safety

[tonupkid]

Safety is at the top of my buying priorities, and I too wonder at the lack of consideration others give to this.
Moltuae explains it perfectly, and the same physics applies in other possible crash scenarios.
Size gives the engineers space to build in more energy absorbing structure. And weight, like Moltuae says, reduces the acceleration to which bodies in the vehicle will be subjected.
I believe that newer cars do offer increased survivability, as they have the benefit of active detection and avoidance systems. Whereas my D3 is purely reactive.
I also like the idea of sharing the roads with cars the warn the driver when they are drifting out of their lane, apply the brakes in an emergency and even wake them up.
We just need a device that slaps the phone out of their hands now

[Johnmed]

Safety has always been important to me, and I don't doubt the (D3) 8's safety features, however, it's the only modern car I've owned that doesn't come with an NCAP rating. Which, being frank, I'm not entirely happy with. Gone are the days when a big car was safe purely because of its size.

[paulrstaylor]

This caused me an issue with company usage, when the fleet management company tried to enforce a minimum of 4* NCAP rating on personal cars for company usage, with the A8 not being rated they decided I could no longer use it. Wasn't until I pointed out they had a number of the fleet for the board that they decided to use the A6 rating "as it was basically the same car" - I didn't argue.

My understanding is that to gain a rating they have to crash a few, which with the testing costs €€€ - given that the A8 doesn't sell in high numbers, just not worthwhile for Audi

[Johnmed]

Originally Posted by paulrstaylor

This caused me an issue with company usage, when the fleet management company tried to enforce a minimum of 4* NCAP rating on personal cars for company usage, with the A8 not being rated they decided I could no longer use it. Wasn't until I pointed out they had a number of the fleet for the board that they decided to use the A6 rating "as it was basically the same car" - I didn't argue.

My understanding is that to gain a rating they have to crash a few, which with the testing costs €€€ - given that the A8 doesn't sell in high numbers, just not worthwhile for Audi

That's really interesting Paul, regarding company use. I have read the same about crash testing, but it still doesn't sit right with me.

I'm aware Lamborghini models are crash tested, the Veyron even was. Yet the A8 and the R8 are not.

[snapdragon]

They declined to test the A8 as they were worried about it smashing through the block and destroying their testing outfit

[tintin]

Originally Posted by paulrstaylor

My understanding is that to gain a rating they have to crash a few, which with the testing costs €€€ - given that the A8 doesn't sell in high numbers, just not worthwhile for Audi

That can't be right - an organisation the size of VAG can swallow this sort of cost and not even notice in the rounding of their financials. There must be another reason. Weird otherwise (and if Tesla - an unprofitable car company can do it - why wouldn't Audi be able to?: http://www.euroncap.com/en/results/tesla/model-s/7897)

[paulrstaylor]

https://www.driving.co.uk/news/news-...safety-claims/

Strange they rated the A2, but not all of the models

[Adrian E]

Originally Posted by Johnmed

That's really interesting Paul, regarding company use. I have read the same about crash testing, but it still doesn't sit right with me.

I'm aware Lamborghini models are crash tested, the Veyron even was. Yet the A8 and the R8 are not.

Every car goes through regulatory crash testing in order to gain Type Approval so they can be registered (ignoring the very small volume producers who have alternatives) but not all are put through a EuroNCAP test. Members of EuroNCAP (mostly governments) fund a number of tests a year, but these are supplemented by manufacturers funding their own vehicles because they know safety sells in certain segments more than others.

With the A8 not being a big seller in relative terms it doesn't surprise me that Audi wouldn't choose to self-fund a test, if the majority of their customer base makes the purchasing choice on the assumption the car is safe due to its size, and they'd be better off spending their money in another area of marketing.

Bigger does generally equate to better in an impact, but there's always something bigger and heavier with which you can impact! Think HGV or bridge parapet as examples. EuroNCAP themselves say you should only use their ratings to compare across similar sized vehicles, as the offset deformable barrier test replicates an impact with an identical vehicle, which is far more relevant in most cases than the solid concrete block of old which resulted in vehicles that passed that requirement falling to bits when confronted by another vehicle with a mix of solid and soft parts to interact with. You can make a car very stiff and limit intrusion that way, but the occupants will then experience higher HIC readings and other biomechanical injuries that will result in a less bent car, but very poorly occupants. Think original Smart car as an example, where there simply isn't space to do anything other than make it really stiff.

Nice to see some solid engineering knowledge and discussion in this thread

[Johnmed]

Originally Posted by Adrian E

Every car goes through regulatory crash testing in order to gain Type Approval so they can be registered (ignoring the very small volume producers who have alternatives) but not all are put through a EuroNCAP test. Members of EuroNCAP (mostly governments) fund a number of tests a year, but these are supplemented by manufacturers funding their own vehicles because they know safety sells in certain segments more than others.

With the A8 not being a big seller in relative terms it doesn't surprise me that Audi wouldn't choose to self-fund a test, if the majority of their customer base makes the purchasing choice on the assumption the car is safe due to its size, and they'd be better off spending their money in another area of marketing.

Bigger does generally equate to better in an impact, but there's always something bigger and heavier with which you can impact! Think HGV or bridge parapet as examples. EuroNCAP themselves say you should only use their ratings to compare across similar sized vehicles, as the offset deformable barrier test replicates an impact with an identical vehicle, which is far more relevant in most cases than the solid concrete block of old which resulted in vehicles that passed that requirement falling to bits when confronted by another vehicle with a mix of solid and soft parts to interact with. You can make a car very stiff and limit intrusion that way, but the occupants will then experience higher HIC readings and other biomechanical injuries that will result in a less bent car, but very poorly occupants. Think original Smart car as an example, where there simply isn't space to do anything other than make it really stiff.

Nice to see some solid engineering knowledge and discussion in this thread

Thanks Adrian. Very insightful and informative. As with most things, it's not as black and white as it seems.

[pete-p]

Not a D3 but I have seen a video of a D2 in a crash test. I'm not sure where the footage came from though, perhaps someone here knows or has seen it before?

https://youtu.be/nEwq30hbCEI