Maybe I Should Get the Accord
Member
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 670
From: SF Bay Area
The car is supposed to dissipate the force to save the driver, so you need to look inside the car and evaluate what happened to the driver, not the car.
Member
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,302
From: Louisville
Why do you want a different result? I think you're making the assumption that the end result is bad. The ratings for this car is good not bad.
The car is supposed to dissipate the force to save the driver, so you need to look inside the car and evaluate what happened to the driver, not the car.
The car is supposed to dissipate the force to save the driver, so you need to look inside the car and evaluate what happened to the driver, not the car.
Honda Accord versus Fit: The structure of the Accord held up well in the crash test into the Fit, and all except one measure of injury likelihood recorded on the driver dummy's head, neck, chest, and both legs were good. In contrast, a number of injury measures on the dummy in the Fit were less than good. Forces on the left lower leg and right upper leg were in the marginal range, while the measure on the right tibia was poor. These indicate a high risk of leg injury in a real-world crash of similar severity. In addition, the dummy's head struck the steering wheel through the airbag. Intrusion into the Fit's occupant compartment was extensive. Overall, this minicar's rating is poor in the front-to-front crash, despite its good crashworthiness rating based on the Institute's frontal offset test into a deformable barrier. The Accord earns good ratings for performance in both tests.
Member
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 97
From: Portland OR
FWIW IIHS news release
Intrusion into the cabin is bad, and there's a good chance of getting at least one broken leg. This is the IIHS's analysis of their test (which is what the video is from. Its more than just looking at how damaged the outside is.
Intrusion into the cabin is bad, and there's a good chance of getting at least one broken leg. This is the IIHS's analysis of their test (which is what the video is from. Its more than just looking at how damaged the outside is.
He took a lot of flak for that comment... But it's true. You can only engineer so much crash protection in any vehicle without breaking the bank. And when going up against a much heavier vehicle the laws of physics simply take over. Still, given it's b-segment size, the Fit isn't "unsafe". You want safe? Drive an M1 tank or wear shin guards and a helmet while driving your Fit.
Member
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 670
From: SF Bay Area
FWIW IIHS news release
Intrusion into the cabin is bad, and there's a good chance of getting at least one broken leg. This is the IIHS's analysis of their test (which is what the video is from. Its more than just looking at how damaged the outside is.
Intrusion into the cabin is bad, and there's a good chance of getting at least one broken leg. This is the IIHS's analysis of their test (which is what the video is from. Its more than just looking at how damaged the outside is.
Last edited by raytseng; Jan 25, 2012 at 12:31 PM.
I would rather replace my bumper than bend the unibody in a low speed accident, I wish we didn't have them at all.
Why do you want a different result? I think you're making the assumption that the end result is bad. The ratings for this car is good not bad.
The car is supposed to dissipate the force to save the driver, so you need to look inside the car and evaluate what happened to the driver, not the car.
The car is supposed to dissipate the force to save the driver, so you need to look inside the car and evaluate what happened to the driver, not the car.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
FitNFoxxy
General Fit Talk
41
Mar 6, 2013 10:29 AM
dredayfit
2nd Generation (GE 08-13)
32
Mar 22, 2010 08:58 PM
