TheSamba.com Forums
 
  View original topic: Is your van SAFE? Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
AdrianC Sat Feb 23, 2013 11:30 am

ANY vehicle is dangerous, if you crash it. Don't crash it.

I know it's not quite that simple, but defensive driving will turn a lot of potentially serious situations into nothing more than a sad shake of the head. Yes, there'll always be the numpty that literally appears from nowhere, but if you've got your wits about you there's a lot fewer nowheres for him to appear from.

A lot of it's down to pure luck, too. A few years back, two of our friends were killed in separate car crashes within a few months of each other.

One was in a flimsy early '70s car. He fell asleep at the wheel and hit a 40ton truck head-on, with a closing speed of about 100mph. The truck rolled, the truck driver was badly injured and several other cars were involved in the follow-on.

The other was in a near-new 5* EuroNCAP safety car. Minor rear impact in motorway traffic. He'd put a box of books on the back shelf, which flew forward and took the back of his skull out...

In short, don't sweat it. If your number's up, your number's up.

IdahoDoug Sat Feb 23, 2013 3:32 pm

Yep, lost a classmate in high school when he had a minor collision and was belted. But an unsecured speaker in the back window struck his head. The best thing you can do is remain alert and vigilant as part of your routine driving habit.

I am enjoying the information on the T3's strength as I continue pondering whether to get another. I am about halfway through mechanically restoring an Audi that has a unique safety system that was ahead of its time and never duplicated. It has the PROCON system in it, which is a stainless steel cable attached to the transmission at one end and the steering column at the other end with a pulley in between. In a severe collision that collapses the front end and shoves the tranny rearward, it pulls the steering wheel forward away from the driver into the dashboard to provide more occupant space. It is strong enough to hold what remains of the dashboard forward as well. At the same time, cables yank on the front seatbelts to pretension them. In a less severe collision, it has an airbag as well.

DougM

dixoncj Thu Feb 28, 2013 9:52 pm

Tried to do some correlations. I may be wrong on them.

Exrapolate this out a bit- death rates per 10,000 registrations.


The Vanagon is .6 per 10,000. The NHTSA computes fatalites per 100,000 registered vehicles. That would mean that overall fatality rate in Vanagons is 6 per 100,000 reg'd vehicles.

Overall, according to IIHS, in 2010, the number for ALL vehicles per 100,000 was 12.77, down from 21.15 in 1994.
This would seem to indicate - as we seem to have seen - that the Vanagon is still a pretty safe vehicle by modern comparisons. Seems you have half as much chance of dying in a Vanagon compared to ALL cars sold in 2011, right?

One thing that has me confused however. Recently NHTSA has started computing deaths "Per Million Registered Vehicle Years". I'm not sure if that means the same thing as "Per million registered vehicles". If we took the Vanagon fatality rate out to "Per million registered vehicles/Vanagons," you'd obviously end up with 60 deaths per million Vanagons registered.

But it doesn't seem clear to me that means the same thing as "per million registered vehicle years." Because if it does, then 60 is middling at best compared to some vehicles in, say, this recent IIHS report:
http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4605.pdf

That report shows that, say, a Toyota Sienna has ZERO deaths per million reg'd vehicle years from 2006-2009. The Nissan Armada has 21. Whereas a Chevy Cobalt (tiny car) has 117 deaths per million reg'd vehicle years. I don't think that this is the same measure though, as "per million registered vehicles." Anyone care to/able clear this up?

hellenic vanagon Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:08 am

Since achieved already by other cars, it is easy for a (SYNCRO) VANAGON, in three, simple, steps:

STEP 1:

Strong under cab subframe plate.




STEP 2: CRUNCHER

Double deformation element. (#4). It has to retain the ability to rase the car from its far point, for an horizontal and no vertical deformation.



STEP 3:

Better than airbags!




Monash University

http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/reports/atsb160.pdf

hellenic vanagon Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:54 am

And, as you can see from IIHS data, the 4wd car's, with few exceptions, have lower rates in comparison to their brothers with 2wd, for passive and active safety reasons!

So SYNCRO must be lower than 0.6, which stands for 2wd in IIHS data, having stronger body, rather lower center of gravity because of its underbody 140 κgr. elements and better skidpad performance, all these making easier to achieve something near to zero.

syncroid Fri Mar 01, 2013 8:20 am

You forgot one more safety device, the much maligned wbx.

We probably get into fewer accidents period due to lower speed, and lower speed collisions tend not to be as deadly- that 90 hp is protecting you from yourself.

PDXWesty Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:23 am

Another driver that walked away from a horrific accident: http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=546624

randywebb Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:06 pm

hellenic vanagon wrote: And, as you can see from IIHS data, the 4wd car's, with few exceptions, have lower rates in comparison to their brothers with 2wd, for passive and active safety reasons!

So SYNCRO must be lower than 0.6, which stands for 2wd in IIHS data, having stronger body, rather lower center of gravity because of its underbody 140 κgr. elements and better skidpad performance, all these making easier to achieve something near to zero.

the IIHS data do not provide any causation and certainly do not prove that a syncro would be safer

more, the Van numbers may merely reflect lower mileage per vehicle and/or slower driving

the syncro has a higher gnd. clearance so you would have to figure that into your claim that the Cg is lower

and... is the added mass below the roll center?

the claims are almost entirely speculative

hellenic vanagon Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:18 pm

syncroid wrote: You forgot one more safety device, the much maligned wbx.

We probably get into fewer accidents period due to lower speed, and lower speed collisions tend not to be as deadly- that 90 hp is protecting you from yourself.

As IIHS says, results are "adjusted", so these, and other characteristics, such driver's age, sex, profile, have limited, if any, results.

As you can see in the next IIHS's document, Chevrolet Geo Tracker is the worst, for a specific period, but it is not faster than Chevrolet Corvette, obviously, which is the second worst.

http://www.carsafety.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr3009.pdf

hellenic vanagon Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:32 pm

randywebb wrote: hellenic vanagon wrote: And, as you can see from IIHS data, the 4wd car's, with few exceptions, have lower rates in comparison to their brothers with 2wd, for passive and active safety reasons!

So SYNCRO must be lower than 0.6, which stands for 2wd in IIHS data, having stronger body, rather lower center of gravity because of its underbody 140 κgr. elements and better skidpad performance, all these making easier to achieve something near to zero.

the IIHS data do not provide any causation and certainly do not prove that a syncro would be safer

more, the Van numbers may merely reflect lower mileage per vehicle and/or slower driving

the syncro has a higher gnd. clearance so you would have to figure that into your claim that the Cg is lower

and... is the added mass below the roll center?

the claims are almost entirely speculative


1)Never said that IIHS declares that SYNCRO is safer.

This is mine conclusion, clearly, looking the data.

2)IIHS's results are "adjusted", using the statistics science, so mileage, driver's profile e.t.c., do not affect the results.

3)The extra SYNRO's mass is much lower than the roll center, as you can see here:

[/img]

danfromsyr Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:40 pm

of Hellinic vanagon's (77) posts to date this is by far his favorite thread topic. :lol:
I only stop back in to this thread once a month now to see how far the horse has been beaten.. :roll:
and if there's anything really new or eye opening.

hellenic vanagon Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:48 pm

danfromsyr wrote: of Hellinic vanagon's (77) posts to date this is by far his favorite thread topic. :lol:
I only stop back in to this thread once a month now to see how far the horse has been beaten.. :roll:
and if there's anything really new or eye opening.

Thank you for statistics!

:D

randywebb Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:51 pm

hellenic - you need to explain how those data are "adjusted" then IIHS would have to prove that the adjustments really do correct for other extraneous factors; I have not seen that

2nd - I don't see the roll center on the diagram you posted

Syncros seem fairly tippy to me; not that I wouldn't like to have one...

hellenic vanagon Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:36 pm


hellenic vanagon Fri Mar 01, 2013 2:02 pm

randywebb wrote: hellenic - you need to explain how those data are "adjusted" then IIHS would have to prove that the adjustments really do correct for other extraneous factors; I have not seen that

2nd - I don't see the roll center on the diagram you posted

Syncros seem fairly tippy to me; not that I wouldn't like to have one...

1)IIHS:

"It should be noted that these rates are per million registered vehicles and do not account for driver profiles and thus do not include such factors as driver ability, age, climate, gender, miles driven per year, and traffic conditions. "

and



Another example they give, is that although is known that women have lower fatal crashes rate, some cars bought by them,
in high percentage, give high death rates!

And, somewhere else they say that the data of various era's are directly comparable.

If the data weren't in such scientific way composed, simply they will not considered as "data", accepted officially.

2)The total mass, protective rails and 4wd transission, is on the level of the center of wheel hubs. So it is hanged very low, in fact is the lowest point of the car.

3)A+ for "tipping", 45+ degrees, for a top loaded camper SYNCRO, (static):






kamzcab86 Fri Mar 01, 2013 2:19 pm

This:


keeps getting posted producing the "Wow!" factor from folks, but that nice little list was taken from this report http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr2604.pdf , from April 1991 (that's 22 years ago!), which examined 1984-1988 model year vehicles. Back in the early '90s, Vanagons were considered among the safest due to the (surprising to experts) lower-than-predicted fatality rate. Also note those model years: The Syncro makes up a small portion of that '84-'88 era, so that 0.6 per 10,000 is made up of mostly 2WD.

What the IIHS needs to do, is revisit those stats in the modern era: How do those '80/early '90s vehicles, that were once considered "safer than predicted", hold up in accidents on today's roads filled with SUVs, pick-up trucks, etc.? By our own forum stats, Vanagon fatalities, Syncro or not, are still pretty low, but our forum is merely a drop in a large bucket.

hellenic vanagon Fri Mar 01, 2013 2:23 pm

kamzcab86 wrote: The Syncro makes up a small portion of that '84-'88 era, so that 0.6 per 10,000 is made up of mostly 2WD.

What the IIHS needs to do, is revisit those stats in the modern era: How do those '80/early '90s vehicles, that were once considered "safer than predicted", hold up in accidents on today's roads filled with SUVs, pick-up trucks, etc.? By our own forum stats, Vanagon fatalities, Syncro or not, are still pretty low, but our forum is merely a drop in a large bucket.

They say that data of various eras are directly comparable!

(O.k., adjust for the difference of the number of registrations norm. Bigger number counts for better accuracy.).

hellenic vanagon Fri Mar 01, 2013 2:40 pm

From the document gave you previously:

MODEL MAKE VEHICLESIZE DRIVER DEATHRATE
YEARS &SERIES &BODYSTYLE RESTRAINT (100 =AVERAGE)

1990-93 Volvo240 Midsize4-doorcar Airbag 10
1989-93 Saab9000 MidsizelUXUry car Airbag 14
1989-93 Mercedes190DIE MidsizelUXUry car Airbag 24
1990-93 VolkswagenPassat Midsize4-doorcar Beltonly 24
1992-93 LexusES300 Midsize4·doorcar Airbag 26
1990·93 LaxusLS400 Largeluxury car Airbag 32
1991·93 HondaAccord Midsizeslalionwagon Airbag 33
1993 JeepGrandCherokee4x4 Midsizeutilityvehicle Airbag 34
1991-93 DodgeCaravan Largepassengervan Airbag 34
1991-93 PlymouthVoyager Largepassengervan Airbag 34
http://www.carsafety.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr3009.pdf

Out off topic, but has a connection.

Passat 1990-1993, without airbags has lower death rate in comparison to many cars with airbags!

Same phenomenon again!

randywebb Fri Mar 01, 2013 3:27 pm

there is so much hopeful acceptance here, I just don't know where to begin

- it is not clear what IIHS did as the methodology is not presented, nor is the statistical analysis

- govt.s often accept and proceed on best AVAILABLE information - req'd by statute in some cases

- the fork lift "test" tells us little, esp. comparatively

etc. etc. - but believe whatever you want

hellenic vanagon Fri Mar 01, 2013 4:41 pm

randywebb wrote: there is so much hopeful acceptance here, I just don't know where to begin

- it is not clear what IIHS did as the methodology is not presented, nor is the statistical analysis

- govt.s often accept and proceed on best AVAILABLE information - req'd by statute in some cases

- the fork lift "test" tells us little, esp. comparatively

etc. etc. - but believe whatever you want

1)IIHS's statistical methodology and analysis is a matter of lessons in colleges and universities.

2)Available information means information we can use.

Where to find the unavailable?

3)Comparisons!

F.ex.




Drivers Side Roll Over Angle 41.15 Degrees Left
Passenger Side Roll Over Angle 43.24 Degrees Right

http://forums.exploringnh.com/showthread.php?10249-rollover-angles-for-Jeeps



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group