http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzCO4MV1ttw

 

They cheated. That car has the X-frame and I believe that was a known problem for it, that offset front impact. Id like to see that rerun with something with a more conventional ladder frame.

 

^ who the heck thought THAT was a structurally sound proposition?



and welcome to HyundaiAftermarket from 2009 and 2010



https://www.hyundaiaftermarket.org/f...bu-crash-test/



https://www.hyundaiaftermarket.org/f...-vs-2009-chevy

 

I looks sort of cool and has an awesome name, X-frame.. oh yeah!.

 

Cliffs: Old cars generally look less damaged but the passengers get hurt worse. New cars get totaled easily but the occupants take less force.

 

I hope nobody here is kidding themselves that the bel-air is the only unsafe car from the 50s.

 

Not at all, but I would like to see that same car against a more traditional framed car from that time frame. If I had to sit in one of them it would be the modern car, but I don't think the modern car would drive through the older car like it did in that test.

 

I can assure you that the x-frame isn't the problem.



1: front frame rail is small gauge, mounted at shin height (submarines under other structures), made out of mild steel

2: firewall, sills, and roof pillars aren't structural. The roof can't support the static weight of the vehicle, let alone a 35 mph impact.

3: lap belts if any, non collapsible steering shaft, metal dash, loosely anchored seats, laughable door latches etc ensure that this would be a fatality no matter what the structure

4: ladder frames are weak anyway, especially those from the 1950s

5: check out the chassis of the lotus exige and Honda s2000...

 

"check out the chassis of the lotus exige and Honda s2000"



Compare a body on frame car to a unibody? Ok you got me. You are the structural expert and there was nothing at all wrong with the X-frame and other traditional frames would have the same performance in an offset head-on collision.



Edit:

I would like to point out that I wasn't disagreeing with you for the most part or trying to minimize the safety stuff we have now, I think they picked a car that would sensationalize that sort of impact by letting the new car pretty much drive through the old one. That is why I would like to see that same hit with a traditional frame. Even if they are not made of better metal I don't see the new car driving through it as easy. I could be wrong, hence me wanting to see it and not comparing uni-bodies of today with 50's frames in a discussion online.

 

Everything is fair game on the internet. I can't do a cheeky google on my phone, but the exige and s2000, although "monocoques", get their strength from a backbone and X brace respectively iirc.



My point is that the results would be exactly the same with a 50s ladder chassis. They simply weren't designed with crash safety in mind. You can have a safe or unsafe X frame, a safe or unsafe ladder frame, same goes for monocoques.



A non crumpling, small gauge chassis rail supporting a strictly non structural body is never going to resist an impact man.