RE: Ford Mustang made (a bit) safer

[kambites]

Blue Oval84 said:

That's not what the pre-tensioners are, I think you're mixing up the pre-tensioner with the bit that locks the belt when you move quickly (the inertia reel I believe) - this bit is really just for heavy braking etc.

If you trigger pre-tensioners you'll know about it as small explosive charges detonate and pull the belt in tightly around you, any harder impact and you'll probably get the airbags out as well.

Pretensioners are one-time use things like airbags. You wont even know they're there until they go off and fill the cabin with smoke.

[Carfield]

It's worth pointing out that the US crash tests (IIHS) paint a different picture:

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/ford/mu...

[Centurion07]

"pedestrian detection, forward collision warning, autonomous emergency braking and a lane-keeping aid"

If you need any of those things you have no business being behind the wheel of a car. ANY car, nevermind something with ITRO 3-400BHP!

[kambites]

Carfield said:

It's worth pointing out that the US crash tests (IIHS) paint a different picture:

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/ford/mu...

This is exactly what the criticisms were - tailoring what was supposed to be a "world car" to the US crash tests.

[kambites]

Centurion07 said:

"pedestrian detection, forward collision warning, autonomous emergency braking and a lane-keeping aid"

If you need any of those things you have no business being behind the wheel of a car. ANY car, nevermind something with ITRO 3-400BHP!

Yet they demonstrably reduce road accident rates. Like it or not, a huge proportion of accidents are caused or made worse by people driving when they're too tired to concentrate properly - statistically driving tired is far more of a menace than drink-driving these days.

If everyone who has ever driven when too tired to be at their most alert was removed from the road, there would certainly be a lot less cars! Arguably none, in fact.

[wack]

Mr-B said:

Has anyone on PH ever made a buying decision where the NCAP rating made or broke a deal, where it was the genuine deciding factor? Genuine question. I can honestly say NCAP ratings have never ever come on the radar of any car purchase I have made, then again I am single and don't carry passengers much, no kids in the back to be concerned about etc. Just curious.

I haven't checked the Ncap rating of any car I've ever owned , in a modern car if you hit another car chances are you'll walk away, if you hit anything 7.5T upwards it doesn't matter how many stars your car has you're getting splattered

and as I understood it the star rating only applies in the same class , ie a 2 star mondeo would be safer than a 5 star micro car

[Carfield]

kambites said:

This is exactly what the criticisms were - tailoring what was supposed to be a "world car" to the US crash tests.

Indeed, but from another point of view it demonstrates how subjective the design of the tests are - no-one would suggest that the IIHS testing is not stringent in itself, yet where NCAP found the airbag protection inadequate, the US test said:

"Restraints and dummy kinematics
Dummy movement was well controlled. The driver side curtain and side thorax airbags deployed during the crash. After the dummy moved forward into the frontal airbag, it rebounded into the seat without its head coming close to any stiff structure that could cause injury."

In other words, (on the basic protection issue, rather than provision or otherwise of electronic gubbins) the difference between a 2 star car and a 5 star car is now down to minor differences in testing.

[kambites]

Carfield said:

kambites said:

This is exactly what the criticisms were - tailoring what was supposed to be a "world car" to the US crash tests.

Indeed, but from another point of view it demonstrates how subjective the design of the tests are - no-one would suggest that the IIHS testing is not stringent in itself, yet where NCAP found the airbag protection inadequate.

Of course, every manufacturer tailors their cars to the tests they will be run though; hence when people do things like 10% offset tests which aren't in any of the major test suites, 90% of modern cars perform appallingly. It's not really any different than the way manufacturers tailor their cars to fuel economy tests at the expense of real-world economy.

I'd view the NCAP problems as a management and marketing flaw more than an engineering one.

[CaptainSensib1e]

I own a Mustang and am not too bothered about the NCAP rating. I also take my 2 year old daughter all of two miles to her nursery in the back of the car (wife has an SUV for other family trips).

That said, it seems daft that Ford were so lax on some relatively simple elements on improving safety, for example not having the rear seat belt pretensioners. But overall, I'd rather crash in my Mustang than most other cars from 5+ years ago.

[wst]

Blue Oval84 said:

That's not what the pre-tensioners are, I think you're mixing up the pre-tensioner with the bit that locks the belt when you move quickly (the inertia reel I believe) - this bit is really just for heavy braking etc.

Oh I don't know the name - either way it locks when I brake, before I even move from the braking, and it waits for the suspension to settle totally when I reach the standstill. It's a pain in the 'arris. If future cars will go "oh he's just braking for a junction, don't lock the belts" or "oh god he's gonna crash, lock lock lock!" that will be a marked improvement.

[Blue Oval84]

wst said:

h I don't know the name - either way it locks when I brake, before I even move from the braking, and it waits for the suspension to settle totally when I reach the standstill. It's a pain in the 'arris. If future cars will go "oh he's just braking for a junction, don't lock the belts" or "oh god he's gonna crash, lock lock lock!" that will be a marked improvement.

Yeah the bit you're on about has nothing to do with the crash test I'm afraid, so you'll probably keep having that pain in the 'arris lol

[Blue Oval84]

Carfield said:

Indeed, but from another point of view it demonstrates how subjective the design of the tests are - no-one would suggest that the IIHS testing is not stringent in itself, yet where NCAP found the airbag protection inadequate, the US test said:

"Restraints and dummy kinematics
Dummy movement was well controlled. The driver side curtain and side thorax airbags deployed during the crash. After the dummy moved forward into the frontal airbag, it rebounded into the seat without its head coming close to any stiff structure that could cause injury."

In other words, (on the basic protection issue, rather than provision or otherwise of electronic gubbins) the difference between a 2 star car and a 5 star car is now down to minor differences in testing.

Not quite sure I agree, as I understand it the airbags used in the European market are different than the ones tested in 'Murica. They didn't deploy properly in the NCAP test and the dummy did hit the wheel. That's not just a minor difference in testing, either the IIHS test is flawed, or the bags in the NCAP model didn't work properly. As far as I know this isn't unique to the Mustang, all US airbags tend to be larger than EU ones in order to deal with unbelted occupants.

The fact they've improved the airbags and now the dummy doesn't hit the wheel is definitely a good thing.

[kambites]

Are US market airbags still designed to be effective without the belts? Or is that out of date/an urban myth?

[David87]

When is the proper facelifted car due? The one that looks like this (below) rather than this hastily applied NCAP upgrade!

[Dale487]

dw89 said:

Dale487 said:

MDMetal said:

Feels like the stars should stay for actual structual and safety features and another system should be added for safety enhancing aids, my 350z sure doesn't have any radar, breaking or other crap like that and I'd never buy a car based on having those fetaures, having bad airbags or structual failings should be highlighted more seriously. Surely any Dacia must score low based on lack of tech even if it's structually sound and safe in a crash?

I think that the NCAP test should be split in 2 - a rating for how good a car behaves in a crash & what I assume is a tick box exercise in crash preventing technology (which they as far I can see isn't test to check if it works or throws up dangerous false activations).

On the subject of NCAP ratings swing buying decisions - I wouldn't have bought my Leon if it wasn't a 5* car but that's more to do with that being expected in the class than being a real deal swinger. Plus the Leon is marginally better NCAP performancer than the more expensive Areca I was looking at (which the sales material goes on about how good NCAP performance it has).

Audi dealers got into a whole hill of trouble as the A5 wasn't NCAP tested & were stating that as it's the same platform as the A4 they would perform the same in a crash (which could be true).

But any cars you really want (911, Ferrari etc) aren't even NCAP tested - I bet a M4 & C63 are the most expensive cars that can make NCAP claims.

The aeb (crash prevention systems) are tested by encap

Thanks for filling my knowledge gap in.

[tgx]

In the US you hit someone you get sued. That's incentive to NOT hit someone rather
than worrying about whether the shape of my car is comfy for them when I run over them.
Seems like the nanny state is alive and well and why car design is so hamstrung with
design by committee aesthetics.

[Blue Oval84]

tgx said:

In the US you hit someone you get sued. That's incentive to NOT hit someone rather
than worrying about whether the shape of my car is comfy for them when I run over them.
Seems like the nanny state is alive and well and why car design is so hamstrung with
design by committee aesthetics.

If you run someone over in the UK then you get sued too

Sometimes, these things just happen, so some changes to car design seem sensible to minimise the risks when they do. Manufacturers could always use active features like pop up bonnets but they're quite expensive...

[white_goodman]

David87 said:

When is the proper facelifted car due? The one that looks like this (below) rather than this hastily applied NCAP upgrade!

2018 model year I believe.

[adingley84]

spikyone said:

E65Ross said:

In this day and age, even a rating of 3 stars is pretty shoddy, no?

Far better to work out how it performs if the worst happens, and award stars based on that IMO.

You're missing the point. If you can avoid have the accident in the first place, then both occupants AND pedestrians are 100% safe. That's why so much weight is given to the tech.

[Mr Tidy]

adingley84 said:

You're missing the point. If you can avoid have the accident in the first place, then both occupants AND pedestrians are 100% safe. That's why so much weight is given to the tech.

But why should you need all that tech anyway?

Just raising the standard required from the driver would mean you wouldn't have to rely on all that tech (which will inevitably fail and not get fixed once cars are out of warranty)!

My first car was a MKII Cortina that didn't even have a brake servo but I'm still here!

And an RHD V8 Mustang is definitely on my wishlist (regardless of NCAP score).

Edited by Mr Tidy on Friday 7th July 02:39