Car safety
 

Hello,

I am not sure I am not alone on this one, but..

One of the main reasons why I bought the A8 was due to fact that it is Aluminium built and so it's pretty safe, compared to other similar steel cars.

However it is an 11 year old car, so are new cars a lot safer nowadays?

Also, why do people not ask or care about the safety record/features of their cars, when buying them?

Finally, one car I really admire is a Tesla S , again safety is good here.

Don't get me started on this ;). There's a *cough* surprising amount of stuff on here about that car - just try the search function ;)

Ok no worries, I understand and have read some. It is not all what it seems.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan - as you can see from my signature :D

Large deposit kills buying one on business hire.

Second hand prices are just under 50k, so will have to wait.

Recently, went to Hamburg and checked one out there and absolutely love it.

Btw, I don't fancy the cheaper model out later this year though.

True...but - based on what you've said in the other thread - you could buy it as a company asset (as I'd did...) then write the whole cost off in the year of purchase +++.

Though I must admit, a Model S costs a lot more (about 20% more) than when I got mine just over a year ago.

The Model 3 will be an interesting contrast, but won't arrive here till mid next year (at the earliest...)

Car safety as a consideration when buying an A or S8
 

Hi,

Sorry to drag this back from the Tessla discussion but yes, I bought an A8 with safety in mind (as well as the usual stuff +++ :ROFL:).

I believe my life was saved by an A4 I was driving doing a high speed lane-change on the M1 near the Meadowhalll turn off. I saw an object in lane 2, instinctively moved into lane 3 at some speed...). :tuttut:

A car hit the object, bounced into a truck then I accelerated hard out of the carnage. The accident was described by S.Y. police as the most serious non-fatal accident they had ever dealt with, lots of airbags saved lives, M1 shut behind me :-(.

So. Maybe any car would have moved "at the speed of thought" but would I have had the confidence to try?? :Confused: And the acceleration was tremendous, no "drop a gear, get to 6000 revs and she flys" or "the electronics will give you 4 wheel drive when you need it" crap.

I bought a permanent 4 wheel drive Audi with a torque abundant engine as soon as I could (the A4 was my good pal's). :love: :love:

Robert

I am sure I have not kind of money at the moment, as fairly new in contracting.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Regarding the huge deposit is that paid by the company?

Nice one mate, that is a very close experience, half a second difference.

I think it comes down to two things. 1. Human reaction times- I don't think that has changed.

2. Car safety. Speed, stability and that has changed over the years and is better, at least for the last 20 years ago.

Only thing, nobody wants the big cars, due to overall running costs, but surely safety should also be a big factor.

And yet, to some extent, especially in a head-on accident it's a case of survival of the biggest/heaviest.

That's why I've always preferred larger cars. It's simple physics; the bigger/heavier car will be slowed by the smaller/lighter car in a head-on accident but will continue in the direction it was going, lessening the forces that the impact exerts on the internal organs of the occupants. For the smaller/lighter car, the forces at play are worse than hitting an immovable object. The car changes direction in an instant, exerting huge forces on the occupants. It makes no difference if the small car has some sort of 'rigid safety cell' and a million airbags. Safety features such as those reduce external injuries but do nothing to lessen the extent of the (often fatal) internal injuries caused by the resulting g-forces.

Another thing about head-on accidents is that they're not always avoidable, no matter how carefully/safely you drive. You can never know if some idiot will be on your side of the road one day, while driving around a blind bend.



And that, is why I drive an 8! :)

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 :)

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.

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 :Confused:

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.

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

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)

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

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

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 :D

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

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

Here's an interesting video for comparison (NOTE THAT THE TITLE IS INCORRECT AND IT'S AN A4) - the one above is into a solid concrete block (notice how little intrusion there is into the passenger compartment)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0ZAzVSxabU

This one is into an offset deformable barrier (honeycomb of aluminium which represents the stiffness of a 'real car' of similar design) which can be seen post-impact at about 2.5 mins in.

What you do not want to see is the deformation of the A pillar you see in this video - that's a structural integrity failure, which means the energy is no longer being managed by the crash structures.

That is the problem with EuroNCAP tests, driving into an immovable concrete block doesn't really provide any indication of how the vehicle will fare in a head-on collision, except, as you say, with a vehicle of identical weight.

I don't have the statistics, but I would image a lot of the more severe or fatal accidents are head-on. Motorway design is such that it's quite difficult to hit something as immovable as a bridge or concrete block at high speed; side-on collisions with barriers or traffic going in the same direction are more likely. By contrast, on A roads that have no central barrier, 2 vehicles travelling in opposite directions at just 50mph will have a combined impact speed of 100mph. This of course isn't equivalent to hitting an immovable object at 100mph (rather, hitting a stationary vehicle at 100mph), but the forces worsen greatly for the lighter of the two vehicles.

Also, as I said earlier, there's the matter of being in control of ones own destiny. If I'm a good driver I can most likely avoid a lot of EuroNCAP type accidents. The same can't be said for potentially fatal head-on collisions, for which you may get little time to react.

Of course by reasoning that bigger/heavier is better, I should ideally drive a tank or a truck, but of course there's a practicality compromise to make. For me an 8 is a very good compromise, especially considering the vehicle I'm more likely to meet head-on around a blind-bend is probably going to be a small one, driven by an inexperienced, over-enthusiastic driver. Vehicles larger/heavier than my 8 are probably not just less likely to be on the wrong side of the road but also likely to be taller (and therefore visible sooner) and travelling more slowly. In which case, the fact that the 8 is still light enough to be fast and agile, would hopefully help to get me out of trouble.

The concrete block tests were phased out years ago for regulatory purposes (think Sierra era) - after EuroNCAP moved to offset deformable the regulatory test followed, but at a lower speed and with a simple pass/fail, rather than a scored ranking.

Any of the impact types we talk about involving motorways are likely to be so severe as to be unlikely to be survivable, whether it's hitting a heavy object or being struck head on, just due to the speeds involved before deceleration commences.

Whilst we are talking about hitting solid objects Adrian - do you have any views / comments on the deform-able steel central barriers on motorways being replaced by solid concrete lumps? surely this is a cost thing rather than a safety thing as the deform-able ones help to absorb energy?? :Confused:

I wasn't aware of that. But either way, I'd prefer to see head-on crash tests (and not just because they'd be more fun to watch! :) ). It would be good to see more real-world scenario tests performed (eg, cars head-on of equal size/weight, small vs large cars, medium vs large, etc, etc).

It would also be interesting to see statistics of real collisions in EuroNCAP tested vehicles to see whether the injuries and fatalities data aligns with the test results. My guess is there will be a loose correlation at best.

Wouldn't Audi want to know anyway, just for corporate peace of mind - or do they run their own more rigorous crash safety tests internally which would make that unnecessary? I thought the D4 sold more than the D3, which in turn sold more than the D2, so it seems a bit illogical to crash test the D2 but not later models - unless, as you've said, they see this a marketing rather than safety exercise?

I think it was more of a stopping vehicles (including HGVs) crossing into opposing traffic, which is not a bad idea.

Given it is a continuous pour any impact is likely to be a "glancing blow" and a "head on" should be nigh on impossible? Add in the advances in car safety (i.e. crumple zones) and I think it makes a lot of sense - but suspect it is all a balancing act :Confused:

I think the solid concrete barriers are designed to stop almost anything getting across to the other carriageway and so avoid the worst head-on colliions; pretty sure I read an article explaining the logic several years ago when they started to appear.

Do you mean the posts for the steel rope barriers? I thought they were usually made of steel too. Or are you referring to something else?

I know that the rope barriers, despite their flimsy appearance, tend to perform much better than the conventional steel barriers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8rzbsuEfVY

Very interesting thread.

However why can't cars survive in high speed collisions, Ferraris and other super cars do.

I don't think am wrong when I say there is plastic out there that is unbeeakable and could be used on cars.

I think it is all about making money

Nothing wrong with making money, and methinks its the survivablility of their cars occupants that would be uppermost in peoples minds.

The problem isn't so much how to make the cars survive the impact as how to make the occupants survive it. Something needs to absorb and dissipate all that energy.

If you were to create an immensely strong and rigid vehicle, one that could survive an impact without deforming, the effect would be that a lot more of the energy of the impact would transfer to the occupants. Assuming the occupants are strapped into their seats and their bodies are therefore prevented from continuing forward at 100mph, their organs instead will be propelled forward with great force.

To make high impact energy accidents survivable you have to allow some amount of deceleration and energy absorption, which is the main purpose of crumple zones.

This is another reason I believe larger cars are generally safer (in accidents involving other vehicles). Larger cars usually have larger/longer crumple areas, since they have to be able to absorb their own weight in an accident. Therefore in an accident with another vehicle, particularly a smaller/lighter one, it stands to reason that the car with the larger crumple zones will fare significantly better.

Regarding big cars..

if you recall the Mercedeses Benz s class that Princess Diana was unfortunately killed in, that big car did not provide the necessary protection.

I do agree that upon impact the energy needs to be absorbed, but surely air bag technology could be advanced, so you are cocooned within the shell of the car or something that become a hardened foam, I guess this is more physics?

As in Demolition Man. Strangely enough, I was thinking about that particular scenario when reading through this thread.

More like 'I Robot' with the Audi!
The biggest problem with all car safety is the rate of deceleration of the occupants. Deceleration needs to be as slow as possible (micro seconds make a difference), and manufacturers spend millions engineering crumple zones, seatbelts and rate of airbag deployment. The recent switch had been to active crash avoidance - the technology for which is flying headlong into automation, unfortunately...

I found the premise of this thread interesting, because there's been a concerted drive in the last 25 years in Australia to improve car safety (driven by annoyance for discrepancies like the Aussie designed Capri (POS - poor imitation of a MX5 based on 323 underpinnings, don't bother!) that was fitted with airbags for the US market, but not for ours).
There's a website called "How Safe is Your Car" which will give an indication of ENCAP and ANCAP (Aussie New Car Assessment Program) ratings for all cars on Australian Roads on the last 20 years and is recommended for people to visit before making any purchase decisions.
Safety is a major market driver in this country, and a poor ANCAP/ENCAP ratings will affect sales (the exception being the two star Mustang, although with the late 2017 update model promising five stars, we'll watch that one!). Even Toyota had to lift their game when ANCAP started testing utes and the Ford Ranger/Mazda BT50 (twins under the skin) and VW Amarok attained five stars. The new Hilux is now five stars, and that's despite commercial classed vehicles (vans, utes, and chassied 4x4's) not having the same legislated crash requirements as cars - it was purely market driven.
In fact most safety improvements over the past 20 years can be attributed to the critical success of ENCAP/ANCAP.

Just ask my missus why we bought the XC90 (the V8 version was my concession!)...

It would seem that the car did provide the necessary protection, only it wasn't used at the time by all the occupants. Reports say she wasn't wearing her seatbelt, however her bodyguard (who was) survived.

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9709/21...investigation/

We all throw in some money and I'll buy a scrap A8 and perform some real world crashes with it. (Whilst not being inside the car...)

We don't want to waste an A8, if you ask me, they look fantastic and are a true classic.

Seat belts make all the difference, however regardless of what it is, we are made of bones and flesh and cannot compete with metal.

Prevention systems are the way forward for safety it seems

Said a scrap one .. gotta be cheap