![Gran Turismo 5 demo coming to PSN on Dec 17, GT Academy returns [w/VIDEO]](http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/12/370z-gt-academy_143x85.jpg)
New York Auto Show: Manufacturers flaunt their safety features
With safety features being quite high on the list of features that manufacturers like to show off, we noticed a number of displays centered on occupant protection at this year's New York International Auto Show. Volvo, Hyundai, and Volkswagen gave us a chance to peek under the sheetmetal to see what automakers do to keep passengers safe during violent impacts.
Volvo's display was referred to as "The Steel Story", and was helpfully accompanied by a color coding. Grey and silver are standard steel and aluminum, respectively. Blue is high-strength steel, orange is very-high-strength steel, yellow is extra-high-strength steel, and red is ultra-high-strength steel. Apparently, the guys in charge of steel nomenclature in the industry are not extremely creative.
Note that the tough - and expensive - ultra-high-strength stuff is used in the most critical of areas - the side impact beams and in the B-pillar. Also interesting is the honeycomb of extra-high-strength steel that's used in the rear doors.
Here we see the hoop of extra-high-strength material that forms a protective hoop around the top of the passenger compartment, much like a roll cage. Substantial beams are also used along the top of the door sills for additional protection against intrusion from taller vehicles.
The front fenders make use of high-strength steel beams along their upper edges, which also contribute to improved crashworthiness when impacted by bumpers that are mounted higher than normal.
On display in Hyundai's booth was a dissected Azera that showed off not only the post-crash safety features, but also called attention to pro-active measures such as stability control and anti-lock brakes. Unfortunately, such dynamic systems are a bit difficult to show off on a static display, so all we got there is a series of lines on the floor showing: A) the intended path; B) the path without stability control; and C) the path with stability control.
Much more interesting than some painted stripes was the display vehicle itself, which had its left side removed to show the incredibly dense coverage of airbag protection in a modern vehicle. Also cut away was the driver's seat, which reveals the seat belt "pre-tensioners" that give a sharp tug on the belt when an impact is detected. By tightening the seat belts, the passengers can be held more firmly to the seats, reducing contact with the air bags. Anything that keeps our faces further away from rapidly-expanded pyrotechnics gets the Autoblog Seal of Approval.
Up front, the passenger is protected by three 'bags, with the curtain airbag descending from the ceiling to protect the occupant's head during a side collision, and a side airbag to keep one's hip and pelvis safe from the intruding bumper that's trying to smash them to bits (pelvis protection is high on our list).
The rear passengers in the Azera get similar level of protection from side impacts.
Volkswagen eschewed fancy cutaways, and simply displayed a new Jetta that had been used in an actual side-impact test. What we see here is that the car's robust B-pillar and sill structure have done an admirable job of absorbing the energy of the collision, minimizing intrusion into the passenger compartment and in the process maximizing the amount of room in which the side airbags can do their job. The doors and their contribution to this excellent performance can't be directly observed, but it would appear they've done their job well.
So, there you have it - a glimpse into the world of safety technology. The next time you walk away from a 35 MPH collision with only a few bumps and bruises, quietly thank the large number of men and women who have worked so hard to offer this level of protection.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Joel A 7:31PM (4/15/2006)
You know what has always struck as odd? How come you rarely here mention of Volvo in all those safety tests by all those orgs especially with its reputation.
Reply
Benwood 8:42PM (4/15/2006)
That's because other companies seem to be putting out better products than others including Volvo. If I'm not mistaken, VW AG has at least 5 or 6 cars that have the IIHS Silver awards. Volvo zero, however I think the Ford 500 recvd a Gold. Those cards didn't get Gold because of rear collision could have been better. I'm told they rolled out improved restraints this year. This safety adds weight. My brother's VW Passat was hit by a Camry. She drove away but the Camry did not. The Camry occupents were driven away (ER). 10 years ago, this kind of accident, someone would have been killed. But all in all, cars are getting safer.
Reply
Jay 9:08PM (4/15/2006)
The Hyundai appears to be an Azera, not a Sonata...
Reply
AJ Ballou 9:23PM (4/15/2006)
Great post! Very interesting. All of that super-high-strength-double-half-caff-2-percent-hold-the-cheese steel must be heavy and expensive, but it's worth it if you've ever been in a terrible accident. The heavier vehicle will almost always come out on top in a collision (physics and whatnot), but all of these active and passive safety features definitely keep the extra momentum from harming a vehicle's occupants too much. Were there any cutouts of Saab's active head restraints?
Reply
naggs 10:37PM (4/15/2006)
bah, crash safty is for soccer moms and 16 year old girls, this stuff is all dead weight. i guess someone forgot to tell VW volvo and hyundai that dying in a huge fireball is cool. i really wish that some of this ultra high stregnth steel got used in a performance application, dont car (and law) makers know that some people arent willing to pay for safty espically when it comes at such a huge performance penalty? shouldnt i be able to buy a stupid fast death trap if i want to?
Reply
homeskillit 10:41PM (4/15/2006)
i agree with naggs (#5) safty should not be mandatory if it has downsides. i know that a car is a good buy when it is being fazed out because it cant meet the new minimum crash test. i just dont plan on wraping my weekend autocrosser around a tree.
Reply
Juan 11:24PM (4/15/2006)
Crash safety is for soccer moms? Uh...no. I'm sure that there are plenty of people that would prefer safety to be optional, but there are many more that believe it should be standard. And when a company goes all-out to equip its vehicles with the latest safety technology to protect their occupants, it shows that the automaker at least cares somewhat about their consumers. And with plenty of cars these days with well over 300 horsepower, we need all of the safety we can get. YOU may want to have a stupid fast death trap, but that 16 year old girl in that car you just smashed into may not. At least she'll have somewhat of a chance of walking out alive. Here's to modern technology!
Reply
Alan 11:26PM (4/15/2006)
Even if manufacturers could offer death traps, I doubt that they would. Consumers are very safety focused now. Note that VW, Hyundai, Honda, BMW, and the others with Silver and Gold awards exceed government standards. IOW, they don't have to build in this much safety.
Reply
Cameron 11:52PM (4/15/2006)
I'm going to pretend I didn't just read #5 and #6. You'll eat your words when you or someone you love is involved in a serious accident.
It all comes down to physics. The tests Volvo performs on their own are superior to tests performed by both the government and many of the insurance organizations. The US government tests are lower speed, and don't test for things like SUV vs. small car. The insurance institutes are slightly better, but only marginally. This report fails to mention the huge advancements Honda has made in safety. For instance their crash compatability system that makes up for the differences in bumper heights between trucks and cars to make the car safety systems more effective in a crash. Also, the massive shift by the auto industry to protect pedestrians that are hit by cars. Ford in Europe is experimenting with external airbags, and new Hondas have a bigger gap between the engine and the hood to better protect the head of a pedestrian that is struck by the car.
Reply
Alan 12:45AM (4/16/2006)
#9, care to elaborate? What are Volvo's tests, and how are they superior to the insurance industry's? I've never heard the IIHS' tests described as only "marginally" better than the government's, particularly not in the side-impact crash, which simulates an SUV. Volvo's don't do particularly well in those.
OTOH, the IIHS' frontal crash tests are identical to the European NCAP. Now that almost every car gets a "Good" rating, I agree that these should be updated.
Reply
Alan 12:47AM (4/16/2006)
#9, the article doesn't mention Honda likely because Honda isn't flaunting safety at the New York Auto Show the way the other manufacturers are.
As for pedestrian protection, that is mandated by the EU, so naturally cars that are sold in Europe (i.e. European makes, and certain Fords and Hondas sold here like Volvos and Acura TSXs) would have these features as well. I think the manufacturers are still being prodded by governments here, rather than leading the government as they are in frontal and side-impact crash standards.
Reply
CH 1:04AM (4/16/2006)
"That's because other companies seem to be putting out better products than others including Volvo."
The key word is "seem". Volvo's emphasis is on real-world crashes not a few simple crash tests. Additional things to consider w.r.t the IIHS awards:
Total number of Volvo models - 8
Total completely tested by IIHS - 2
Percent of awardees designed within last 3 yrs - 100%
Number of tested Volvo models designed within last 3 yrs - 1
Reply
Alan 9:38AM (4/16/2006)
#12, but consider the results of the S40 that was recently tested. It was re-designed in 2005, but got only an "acceptable" rating in the side-impact crash because of marginal torso protection and an "acceptable" structure/safety cage. The latter in particular is somewhat telling. This is not to say that the Volvo is a bad car or performs poorly (it actually does very well), but it seems that other manufacturers may be doing as well or better. Perhaps they are designing the cars to the tests, but to discern any difference in Volvos, we'd need to know what they do that the IIHS doesn't.
Reply
MikeW 10:00AM (4/16/2006)
Rear side air bags, how cool.
Reply
Josh Linder 10:32AM (4/16/2006)
The interior of the Hyundai Azera door looks cheap - re-affirming my thoughts about Hyundai/Kia/Ssangyong.
Volvo and VW (the Passat above) show much better design - not only what you see, but under the skin.
"You get what you pay for."
Reply
Krishna Das 11:39AM (4/16/2006)
#5 and #6, I honestly would like you guys to be in an accident in order to appreciate these features.
The wrc cars are very fast and very safe. They do have a roll cage. Safe cars can be fast too. If you guys care so much about performance. Get rid of your back seat, sound proofing and all the electrical gizmos.
#15: This blog is not about interior quality.
Reply
Smoove D 12:06PM (4/16/2006)
Honda safety features rock. I've been in two bad crashes in Honda/Acura products and walked away with no injuries both times. One was at 30mph and the other was at 65mph.
Reply
ibran 12:13PM (4/16/2006)
Glad to see that consumers are finally starting to pay attention to safety in the construction of the car, rather than just features (airbags, etc.)
Saturn dealers often had a cut-away S-series demonstrating all of the steel crossbars underneath the plastic skin, among other safety features. I doubt they still do that, but it was kinda cool to see.
Reply
CH 4:54PM (4/16/2006)
Alan,
Volvo safety design begins and ends with what actually happens on the roads with actual drivers and passengers. Crashes are so varied and complex that there is no substitute for real accidents with real people.
Volvo was the first company (and is still one of only about three) to set up an accident research team over 35 years ago. They have analyzed over 35,000 individual crashes involving Volvos and the database includes detailed medical records.
Volvo uses crash tests as a design tool and for intermediate evaluation. They have probably the most advanced safety center in the world - one that the IIHS can only dream of owning. It allows them to test single- and multiple-vehicle crashes over a wide range of speeds, angles and offsets. Speeds and impact points are controlled precisely with lasers. They have dummies that are far more advanced than the IIHS'.
Multiple-vehicles crashes are done using two actual vehicles with one or both vehicles in motion. For example, the S40 and new C70 were tested in front and side impacts with XC90s weighing over 4,500 lbs. In side impacts, the struck vehicle is moving as is normally the case in real-world crashes. The XC90 crash tests included catapulting the vehicle into rollovers.
In the end though, Volvo measures success by what is observed on the roads. A good example of the Volvo safety design cycle is whiplash protection. They saw from their accident research that it was a good thing to have, so it was implemented 6 years before there were any 3rd-pary tests.
When the IIHS/IIWPG dynamic tests placed Volvo at the top, Volvo's reaction was interesting. They said were are pleased with the results, but these kinds of tests only show a "sliver" of what happens in the real life. What really mattered, they said, was that 6 years of accident research had already shown that the seats were effective.
It's a good bet the crash testers weren't exactly thrilled.
Reply
Alan 11:47PM (4/16/2006)
CH,
Thanks for the info. You seem pretty knowledgeable about this. My main question here is if Volvo has all this information and advanced technology, why Ford/Volvo doesn't release the data, and why the auto industry doesn't band together to research safety. Auto industry cooperation is at a high right now, so safety would seem to be a logical area for cooperation.
In any case, there is a limit to the gains that can be made with passive safety (at least within reasonable costs). There are only so many more airbags and crumple zones that can be added. Rollover protection seems to be the next and perhaps last major frontier from a passive standpoint. I think there will be more emphasis on active safety features such as stability control, lane-change warning systems (I saw an ad for a Citroen [I think] when I was in Europe that advertised this feature), and distance monitors. Perhaps testing efforts should be refocused here?
Reply