quattro Digest, Vol 59, Issue 35

[W. Bean]

Message: 5 
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:35:26 -0400 
Brett Dikeman replied to what cobram at juno put forth:
On Sep 30, 2008, at 12:23 AM, cobram at juno.com wrote: 
 
> 6 month old rice burner, about a year ago, Brett.  Actual  
> experience, not some experiment or controlled simulation. 
 
Right, I forgot that uncontrolled sample sizes of one are more  
reliable than scientific process. 
 
>  Current crash tests are highly open to interpretation 
 
What reputable people or organizations have questioned crash testing  
methodology?   Society has been crash-testing vehicles for more than  
half a decade, and it's not even remotely disputed that this has led  
to a constant improvement in vehicle safety and crash survivability,  
save when manufacturers specifically choose to build inferior vehicles  
to boost profits (like when Ford used substandard steel in the A- 
pillars of Ford Explorers.)  There are at least three major crash- 
testing organizations in the world- Euro-NCAP, DOT, and IIHS.  Audi  
and other manufacturers now conduct internal preliminary crash  
simulations on supercomputer clusters to help with the design process. 
 
> Regulations, tests and methodology have changed so much over the years 
 
The basic tests have not changed much at all- only the data  
collection, analysis, and rating criteria have become more  
sophisticated.  They still take a car and smash it into something  
completely immovable or something designed to deform like another car,  
and either full-on or offset.  There has also been the introduction of  
pole (Euro-NCAP) and side-impact (IIHS and DOT) tests. 
 
Brett 
 
----

I'll take the real-world results over a crash test any day.  I don't know about you but I don't live in a controlled environment.  The HLDI results are, I believe, a much more accurate snapshot of what goes on out on the highways.  

Wylie Bean
92 Ur
90 cq
91 90q20v
08 Q7