Quote:

Originally Posted by Moltisanti2009

Think kenetic energy. That is not the equivalent of hitting a wall at 40 mph. That is so far off.

ThomP is EXACTLY CORRECT. A car hitting the mirror image of itself is the same as that car hitting a non-deformable barrier.

The "mirror cars" are equal and opposite forces. The same thing happens when one of the cars hits a wall that does not move or deform, an equal and opposite force has been applied to the car.

Change the mass or speed of any car and you will need to do a Google search on the principals of "conservation of momentum" and impulse. (because I don't want to type all that here!)

We can visualize with the videos below...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfY3VvDsQxg Honda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcTf78b8WfY Toyota
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg64wMtl2gQ Merc/Smart
...Note, the Accord and Fit have the least difference in weight, see how the fit stops fairly quickly

...Now, the Merc is MASSIVE and the Smart is very light, conservation of momentum, see how the Merc continues on after the collision with a decent forward velocity. See how the Smart incurs extreme deceleration and then accelerates and is thrown back off the Merc.

My observations and thoughts:
Pit the Fit against the heavy Merc it will look more like the smart car. Though I would still prefer the fit because of the extra mass. The smart cars are extremely rigid, they use other cars crumple zones because they basically don't have one. The problem with smart cars because they are so light is IMPULSE, they are tossed around in a collision and the extreme gforces (acceleration forces) that imparts to the driver is damaging.

Note that the Camry ONLY received an acceptable rating, against a tiny Yaris!! That Yaris would be sooo dead against that Merc.

All things considered I would choose the Fit.

(Oh and hello, how is my first post )

edit => Be glad you don't drive this => http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukq-UUQAcZs

 

hell of a first post lol

 

FYI I was being ironic... if I dont think Japanese cars are safe to begin with:

1) I will not be so proud of being a Japanese car owner
2) I will be driving a dosmestic
3) I will not be on this forum

 

Maybe cos u are at Richmond BC? Not being racist (I am chinese myself), but a lot of chinese are buying BIG cars because of two reasons:

1) Mercedes, BMW, Land Rovers... Its a social status thing - heck the drivers prolly never use the 4WD feature on it.

2) Most housewives still think SUVs give better visibility and are safer for their family and kids... at the end, housewives make the call for purchase, husband only pays the bill~

Try driving into Vancouver city and you see theres actually a lot of small cars around.. drive into downtown Vancouer and u virtually dun see big cars

 

i'm gonna go out and crash my fit tomorrow so i can go out on disability and collect my social security before it runs out.

 

FWIW, I thought the pic I saw of the Fit with the left front impact looked fine from a safety perspective. The exterior was mashed, sure, but the passenger compartment looked very intact.

 

Would I prefer to be in 2009 Accord instead of a 2009 Fit in an offset or side collision?

Yes - but what would I prefer to be driving when trying to avoid such a collision in the first place?

The same characteristics that make a Fit easier to park and maneuver than an Accord can provide a driver more choice when trying to avoid a collision. This can make a difference when having to shoot a narrow gap in a fast-moving situation.

Also, the report dismisses the many new safety features that make a 2009 Honda anything safer than any of the models offered by anyone in decades past.

 

This test maybe a reason for insurance company to increase small car insurance premium.

 

Coming up from the US, i definitely drive through Richmond, and have a friend that lives there, so i know what you're talking about. I see it downtown in Vancouver and on the North Shore too, though.

 

I laughed when they tossed in advertising for the ford hybrid in the video.

 

Interesting, the USA Today article has revised its text, no longer saying that it's equivalent to a 80 mph closing speed, much as has been disclaimed here. They now say