:: View topic - 1959 Chevy Bel Air Vs 2009 Chevy Malibu

Just love seeing two cars I'd love to have, crashing into each other, and being laid to waste.

One has to appreciate, as well, that the crash test was done with a glancing blow to the weakest edge of the older car; a strictly decorative element of a sculpted fender..

In a head-on collision - the weight, momentum and engine mass of the larger car would definitely flatten the newer one.

A fairly selective example, used to illustrate a desirable bias.

I don't know if I'd call new cars stronger, per se, but they're definitely going to behave better in a crash. The old car is bigger, but it has no crumple zone - what you see here is still going to happen, the cabin is still going to get obliterated. The new car is going to absorb the impact more and crumple, resulting in less damage to the cabin, giving the driver a much better chance of surviving.

Both cars were hit in the same area...left (driver's) side, probably indicative of what most head-on collisions would be like. I'd imagine being straight head-on would have similar results...the new car would crumple and absorb the impact, the old car would be torn apart by it.

Sabres2Sabres wrote:

Not to belabor the point. But, my point is not to argue - I'm just pointing out that a "bubble" of formed sheet metal that hangs off the edge of the chassis, for decorative purposes and in no way has any structural relevence is obviously going to take a beating and (in this instance) serve to deflect the glancing blow (unfortunately) directly toward the driver's side of the cabin.

If the newer, lighter, smaller car (crumple zones and all) struck the older, more poorly engineered, non-absorbant frame directly?...Hey. We're talking about sheer mass.

I wouldn't pit a Honda Civic against a full-sized Escalade, no matter what the year or the features.

A Formula 1 car has great "crumple zones" that ensure driver-survival, but I still wouldn't put it up against a FedEx delivery truck with a full load.

Those two cars hit "square" and the new car submarines under the '59, with the driver getting a (half) ton of V8 in his lap...

This was a creative display to highlight the virtues of a very specific set of features. That's all I'm saying.

Author:	Skyline_BNR34 [ Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:53 am ]
Post subject:	1959 Chevy Bel Air Vs 2009 Chevy Malibu
So here is a video showing how far crash safety has come in the past 50 years. It is pretty amazing so just watch: http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1921618

Author:	Melly317 [ Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:22 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 1959 Chevy Bel Air Vs 2009 Chevy Malibu
That's nuts. I always assumed that because the older cars were so big that they were like tanks.

Author:	Sabres2Sabres [ Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:25 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 1959 Chevy Bel Air Vs 2009 Chevy Malibu
No, it's the total opposite - they don't crumple.

Author:	Sneaky E [ Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:30 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 1959 Chevy Bel Air Vs 2009 Chevy Malibu
I wonder what speed that was. Holy shizah, it just went right through it.

Author:	icehound [ Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:59 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 1959 Chevy Bel Air Vs 2009 Chevy Malibu
Yeah, but the Bel-Air was *way* more stylin'... Live fast, die young - In a sweet-lookin' ride.

http://www.sabresjunkie.com/forum/

1959 Chevy Bel Air Vs 2009 Chevy Malibu http://www.sabresjunkie.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=194	Page 1 of 2

Author:	fly as hale [ Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:37 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 1959 Chevy Bel Air Vs 2009 Chevy Malibu
vroooom vrroooooom, muthafuckaaaa

Author:	Howie Hodge [ Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:42 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 1959 Chevy Bel Air Vs 2009 Chevy Malibu
Just love seeing two cars I'd love to have, crashing into each other, and being laid to waste.

Author:	fly as hale [ Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:46 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 1959 Chevy Bel Air Vs 2009 Chevy Malibu
Howie Hodge wrote: Just love seeing two cars I'd love to have, crashing into each other, and being laid to waste. I know, it's a shame what they did to that 1959 Bel Air.

Author:	dontbethatguy [ Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:53 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 1959 Chevy Bel Air Vs 2009 Chevy Malibu
Style trumps safety people. Why else would women were stilettos?

Author:	ItsMe [ Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:40 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1959 Chevy Bel Air Vs 2009 Chevy Malibu
Back in those days, people drove much safer cause they knew if they hit something it was over. ..................today its like, meh............... Plus driving those boats were like maneuvering the Queen Elisabeth in a bath tub. Over 70 and you had your hands full.

Author:	Skyline_BNR34 [ Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:07 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1959 Chevy Bel Air Vs 2009 Chevy Malibu
Well it shows even though the car is basically only metal, the plastic shit of today is way safer.

Author:	icehound [ Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:49 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 1959 Chevy Bel Air Vs 2009 Chevy Malibu
One has to appreciate, as well, that the crash test was done with a glancing blow to the weakest edge of the older car; a strictly decorative element of a sculpted fender.. In a head-on collision - the weight, momentum and engine mass of the larger car would definitely flatten the newer one. A fairly selective example, used to illustrate a desirable bias.

Author:	Skyline_BNR34 [ Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:28 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 1959 Chevy Bel Air Vs 2009 Chevy Malibu
icehound wrote: One has to appreciate, as well, that the crash test was done with a glancing blow to the weakest edge of the older car; a strictly decorative element of a sculpted fender.. In a head-on collision - the weight, momentum and engine mass of the larger car would definitely flatten the newer one. A fairly selective example, used to illustrate a desirable bias. No, new cars are stronger, if a heavier object is built weaker the lighter object will win. And in the overhead view both cars are hit in the same spot, the driver's side is hit. Both cars are hit in the same spot and newer cars are much safer, and that proves it. I'm sure if it was hit directly head on the results would be the same. It was hit head on, but using just the driver's side being hit on both cars.

Author:	Sabres2Sabres [ Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:39 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 1959 Chevy Bel Air Vs 2009 Chevy Malibu
I don't know if I'd call new cars stronger, per se, but they're definitely going to behave better in a crash. The old car is bigger, but it has no crumple zone - what you see here is still going to happen, the cabin is still going to get obliterated. The new car is going to absorb the impact more and crumple, resulting in less damage to the cabin, giving the driver a much better chance of surviving. Both cars were hit in the same area...left (driver's) side, probably indicative of what most head-on collisions would be like. I'd imagine being straight head-on would have similar results...the new car would crumple and absorb the impact, the old car would be torn apart by it.

Author:	Markus [ Thu Sep 24, 2009 1:43 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 1959 Chevy Bel Air Vs 2009 Chevy Malibu
Correct. You are right in everything you said, but you have to talk about it this way. Safety ratings probably shouldn't be in relative terms. When it comes down to heavy traffic 75 mph freeway driving, a truck is going to hold up better than a car. I hate how Volvo and companies like them strut those "ratings" but when it came down to it in a crash test car vs car (or truck) they don't hold up well. To me, there is a huge difference between a Volvo hitting a cement wall as to another moving large object.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	icehound [ Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1959 Chevy Bel Air Vs 2009 Chevy Malibu
Sabres2Sabres wrote: I don't know if I'd call new cars stronger, per se, but they're definitely going to behave better in a crash. The old car is bigger, but it has no crumple zone - what you see here is still going to happen, the cabin is still going to get obliterated. The new car is going to absorb the impact more and crumple, resulting in less damage to the cabin, giving the driver a much better chance of surviving. Both cars were hit in the same area...left (driver's) side, probably indicative of what most head-on collisions would be like. I'd imagine being straight head-on would have similar results...the new car would crumple and absorb the impact, the old car would be torn apart by it. Not to belabor the point. But, my point is not to argue - I'm just pointing out that a "bubble" of formed sheet metal that hangs off the edge of the chassis, for decorative purposes and in no way has any structural relevence is obviously going to take a beating and (in this instance) serve to deflect the glancing blow (unfortunately) directly toward the driver's side of the cabin. If the newer, lighter, smaller car (crumple zones and all) struck the older, more poorly engineered, non-absorbant frame directly?...Hey. We're talking about sheer mass. I wouldn't pit a Honda Civic against a full-sized Escalade, no matter what the year or the features. A Formula 1 car has great "crumple zones" that ensure driver-survival, but I still wouldn't put it up against a FedEx delivery truck with a full load. Those two cars hit "square" and the new car submarines under the '59, with the driver getting a (half) ton of V8 in his lap... This was a creative display to highlight the virtues of a very specific set of features. That's all I'm saying.

Author:	Skyline_BNR34 [ Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:30 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 1959 Chevy Bel Air Vs 2009 Chevy Malibu
I'd take 8 inches or whatever thick it is of Pure Carbon Fibre around me in a crash anyday then 1/2 inch thick tin of the Fedex truck with a full load. The fact the cabin of F1 cars does not get destroyed is what you look at. But on that '59 it still hit the left side frame rail, and that is a solid piece of steel, those cars were built as a body with a frame, and the frame should be the sturdiest part. Weight and mass isn't everything with how cars are designed nowadays. With the crumple zones of new cars, and the fact older cars are not as safe, getting into a wreck with a new car is safer and you will be given less injury.

Author:	Markus [ Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:09 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 1959 Chevy Bel Air Vs 2009 Chevy Malibu
icehound wrote: Sabres2Sabres wrote: I don't know if I'd call new cars stronger, per se, but they're definitely going to behave better in a crash. The old car is bigger, but it has no crumple zone - what you see here is still going to happen, the cabin is still going to get obliterated. The new car is going to absorb the impact more and crumple, resulting in less damage to the cabin, giving the driver a much better chance of surviving. Both cars were hit in the same area...left (driver's) side, probably indicative of what most head-on collisions would be like. I'd imagine being straight head-on would have similar results...the new car would crumple and absorb the impact, the old car would be torn apart by it. Not to belabor the point. But, my point is not to argue - I'm just pointing out that a "bubble" of formed sheet metal that hangs off the edge of the chassis, for decorative purposes and in no way has any structural relevence is obviously going to take a beating and (in this instance) serve to deflect the glancing blow (unfortunately) directly toward the driver's side of the cabin. If the newer, lighter, smaller car (crumple zones and all) struck the older, more poorly engineered, non-absorbant frame directly?...Hey. We're talking about sheer mass. I wouldn't pit a Honda Civic against a full-sized Escalade, no matter what the year or the features. A Formula 1 car has great "crumple zones" that ensure driver-survival, but I still wouldn't put it up against a FedEx delivery truck with a full load. Those two cars hit "square" and the new car submarines under the '59, with the driver getting a (half) ton of V8 in his lap... This was a creative display to highlight the virtues of a very specific set of features. That's all I'm saying. THANK YOU. I hate hate hate hate how people always say smartcars and suzukis and volvos have awesome safety ratings compared to American cars. Yea...get run over by an F150 or a Silverado or a Ram and we'll see how much that matters. Suvs and trucks for the win.

Author:	Sabres2Sabres [ Thu Sep 24, 2009 1:12 am ]
Post subject:	Re: 1959 Chevy Bel Air Vs 2009 Chevy Malibu
Well yeah, no compact or sedan is going to stand a chance to a pickup or a delivery truck. There is a point at which the difference in momentum is going to be too great for any safety features. You almost have to talk about safety in relative terms - how a car will compare to others in the same size range. There's not much overcoming the size difference, but there still are safety advances. Now, I cannot see how a Smartcar is safe - it's too small to have a crumple zone, and a rear end collision seems like it would be detrimental - the seats are so close to the rear of the car, there's nothing to absorb the impact. Compared to a regular car, which will help to absorb it. When I was rear ended, I didn't feel a thing because the rear of my car crumpled as it should, even though the car that hit me was probably going about 25. I heard it, but didn't even get pushed forward in my seat. Had I been driving a Smartcar, it probably would have gone right through the car. I can see where it's relatively safe in front or side impact collisions, but it seems like a rear-end collision would not be good.