[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