1959 vs 2009 Chevy crash test

[bobthehobbyguy]

 

[Falcon Ranchero]

I've seen this several times; always makes me sad they wrecked a '59, but it also shows that, yes, they don't make cars like they used to, and safety has come a long way. The 2009 fared better in the collision than the '59, a cruel reminder to be safe on the streets when cruising in your classic.

[Fat Brian]

Another interesting thing is to watch monster trucks crush modern cars. 60s and 70s cars roofs cave in completely on the first pass but modern cars look survivable after several trips over them.

Not the best example but all I could find at the moment

[Can-Con]

So, what were they exactly trying to prove with this video again? 

I say so what? Not many people will be driving cars that old any more.

Think about this though, most 2009 Malibu's have gone to the crusher and I bet most of the '59 Impalas that were around then are probably still around now. 

Funny how that works.

[Ace-Garageguy]

I could probably write a 100-page treatise on exactly why the newer car did so much better in the crash than the old '59, but it's complicated, and nobody would read it anyway.

Suffice it to say that there wasn't any significant structure above the main frame in the '59, other than what was required to support the outer sheetmetal.

Engineers were primarily concerned with building things that would go from point A to point B, rather than providing survivable cocoons for the lowest-common-denominator clueless or irresponsible driver.

With the widespread adoption of monocoque construction and strut-type front suspension, significant structure ahead of the firewall had to be added to support the static and dynamic loads. Couple that with the availability of CAD/CAE and finite-element-analysis requiring lots of number-crunching power (largely a benefit of developing aerospace requirements) which made it possible to fairly accurately model and predict structural behavior in a crash, and "safer" vehicles resulted.

It's entirely possible to re-engineer a '50s car (fairly easily, like adding a roll-cage) to behave the same way in a crash, but it's probably more effective at this point in time to just get off the phone and pay attention if you're driving one.  

 

Edited August 20, 2024 by Ace-Garageguy
TYPO

[Tabbysdaddy]

58 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

I could probably write a 100-page treatise on exactly why the newer car did so much better in the crash than the old '59, but it's complicated, and nobody would read it anyway.

Suffice it to say that there wasn't any significant structure above the main frame in the '59, other than what was required to support the outer sheetmetal.

Engineers were primarily concerned with building things that would go from point A to point B, rather than providing survivable cocoons for the lowest-common-denominator clueless or irresponsible driver.

With the widespread adoption of monocoque construction and strut-type front suspension, significant structure ahead of the firewall had to be added to support the static and dynamic loads. Couple that with the availability of CAD/CAE and finite-element-analysis requiring lots of number-crunching power (largely a benefit of developing aerospace requirements) which made it possible to fairly accurately model and predict structural behavior in a crash, and "safer" vehicles resulted.

It's entirely possible to re-engineer a '50s car (fairly easily, like adding a roll-cage) to behave the same way in a crash, but it's probably more effective at this point in time to just get off the phone and pay attention if you're driving one.  

 

TLDR.

 

[bobss396]

Before 1965, no US car had a crumple-zone. They also had the deadly one piece steering column. This is why I use 3-point belts in my old cars.

Padded dashes came about maybe in 1954. They were optional in some cars. A hell of a remedy anticipating a bad wreck. Not really. I doubt they helped much.

[Brian Austin]

It should be pointed out the test was part of the 50th anniversary of the IIHS, to drive home the improvements in car safety over the decades.

https://www.iihs.org/about/50th-anniversary

 

Both cars are still on display in their lobby.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=537858801307932

 

 

[espo]

Shame about the nice looking '59 Chevy. I was always under the impression you were supposed to avoid running into another car. 

[bobss396]

1 hour ago, espo said:

Shame about the nice looking '59 Chevy. I was always under the impression you were supposed to avoid running into another car. 

One of the ideas behind the test was to show the severity of an off center crash.

The standard tests used to be square head-to-head or a t-bone. 

One kid I knew lived next to a tow yard. This was around 1964 to 1968. We saw some gruesome bloody wrecks.. eventually we stopped looking so close. One was a 1956 or so Chrysler that was hit by a train.

[Brian Austin]

On 8/20/2024 at 6:39 PM, Can-Con said:

So, what were they exactly trying to prove with this video again? 

I say so what? Not many people will be driving cars that old any more.

Think about this though, most 2009 Malibu's have gone to the crusher and I bet most of the '59 Impalas that were around then are probably still around now. 

Funny how that works.

 

it's funny how rosy-glassed survivorship bias works regarding classic cars.

Don't forget cars were junked much earlier than now.  Cars were traded in after only two or three years.  They became unfashionable once next year's model was introduced.  Sometimes they were well worn out at that point.  Cars weren't expected to last 100,000 while modern cars last twice that or even much more.  Heck, they didn't have the corrosion resistance they have now, so they started rusting fairly quickly.

People get wound up by this video but then forget there are project cars rusting away in storage due to neglect.

 

 

[Can-Con]

9 minutes ago, Brian Austin said:

 

it's funny how rosy-glassed survivorship bias works regarding classic cars.

Don't forget cars were junked much earlier than now.  Cars were traded in after only two or three years.  They became unfashionable once next year's model was introduced.  Sometimes they were well worn out at that point.  Cars weren't expected to last 100,000 while modern cars last twice that or even much more.  Heck, they didn't have the corrosion resistance they have now, so they started rusting fairly quickly.

People get wound up by this video but then forget there are project cars rusting away in storage due to neglect.

 

 

I take it you didn't like my post, Brian? ?

[Ace-Garageguy]

Actually, those old cars were SO dangerous that NOBODY survived, and those of us who believe we "lived through" the decades without being decapitated or impaled or incinerated or strained through broken jagged windshields are nothing but figments of our own imaginations.  

Edited August 22, 2024 by Ace-Garageguy

[bobss396]

There are 2 reactions from a crash, the primary is what the car hits, the 2nd is people inside the car hitting the dash or whatever. Seatbelts should have been better from the onset, but the public would have rebeled against them.

There were cars with the 3rd belt tucked against the headliner in clips, I cannot think if I ever saw one taken down. Then there was the belt warning buzzer to deal with, either the buzzer was bypassed, or the belts were joined and people sat on them. I still know people now with new cars who do not use belts at all. Mine goes on before I start the car.

I was around 10 and saw my 1st car accident at a shopping center, someone with a '58 Ford t-boned another car. The windshield from the Ford popped out, trim and all. It skipped over the car that was hit, then skipped onto the pavement. It never fell over, remained upright the whole time, not even a crack in it. Back then they were made to pop out on impact, going through one was a death sentence.

[Bainford]

1 hour ago, bobss396 said:

There were cars with the 3rd belt tucked against the headliner in clips, I cannot think if I ever saw one taken down.

The culture of the time, as discussed, was to not wear belts often, if at all. I think some people just felt silly strapping on the third belt. But another problem (the real problem?) was the total lack of ergonomics in belt design. I have a '69 Mach 1 with the shoulder belts up on the edge of the headliner. I am a lifetime seatbelt wearer (Dad drilled that into our heads right from the start as kids), but I never wear those third belts in the Mustang because they are so poorly placed. When installed they fit high on the neck and come across the body right under the chin. Not at all comfortable, and the way they hold the neck, I am convinced that if worn, an otherwise survivable collision would end up breaking my neck as the torso is thrown forward while the neck is pinned to the seatback. Also, they were rigidly mounted (no inertia reel) so when wearing the belt I could not lean forward to operate switches on the dash. Even shifting was troublesome. Complete and utter failure of design.

Edited August 23, 2024 by Bainford

[Falcon Ranchero]

Lap belts were more common back then, I would imagine, but obviously that still wasn't enough because your whole top-half would be thrown, while the rest of you is strapped to the seat; not really the safest. My Great Uncle's '65 T-bird has the original lap belts and they fit quite snug, but you'd still get thrown forward in a collision.

[espo]

20 hours ago, bobss396 said:

One of the ideas behind the test was to show the severity of an off center crash.

The standard tests used to be square head-to-head or a t-bone. 

One kid I knew lived next to a tow yard. This was around 1964 to 1968. We saw some gruesome bloody wrecks.. eventually we stopped looking so close. One was a 1956 or so Chrysler that was hit by a train.

Had a similar experience when i was a high school student. They were always trying to scare us to be careful drivers by parking mangled cars on the lawn in front of our school. After school we would often go to a drug store in town, about a mile walk, and have a soft drink and hangout. On the other side of the alley behind the drug store was a small storge lot for the PD with no fencing around it and you could wonder through all the wrecked cars. At that age I think a certain amount of morbid curiosity is not unusual. 

[bobss396]

I have 3-point belts in my '59 Ford that retract well. I have had to make a couple of hard stops and they work. My '66 Chevy, they do it poorly so far and I will replace them. Belts have come a very long way since 1969.