Electric car crash test 2011

  • Thread starter Thread starter blaaah
  • 55 comments
  • 3,729 views
niky


By your logic regarding weight and crash integrity, the gasoline version should get five stars, but it doesn't.
Click to expand...

True using my logic a petrol version being 200kgs lighter should get a better frontal impact score at speed. But unless It has completely eluded me they are electric only cars there is no petrol/diesel versions?
 
blaaah
If I played an imaginary gamer of conkers with 2 baked bean cans, both fully intact and sealed but 1 empty 1 full, the weight difference is large. But swing them into each other, the damage would be less to both cans, than if they both were of equal weight.
Click to expand...

Your metaphor proves the point that many are arguing against you..

If two identical objects collide, the kinetic energy of each body is equal, so they will decelerate at the same rate. As Omnis said, if one vehicle weighed more, the greater momentum it carried would transfer into the other body, causing a much more abrupt deceleration for the lighter car. While there would be less energy overall in the collision, a greater proportion would be transferred into the lighter car.

Speed is a far more important factor when considering the potential damage in an accident. Velocity is squared when calculating kinetic energy, mass is not, so a small increase in speed will have a far greater effect on the severity of a crash than an increase in mass would.

Above all else, the structural strength of the vehicle is the most important factor. The Mitsubishi is clearly less structurally strong than, say, the iQ, and scores a lower safety rating as a result. In other words, put an electric motor in an iQ and it is likely that the passengers will be similarly affected in an accident as they would be in a petrol equivalent.
 
My point is based on structure, when a small beetle (insect not the car) hits the windscreen at a lowish speed it can bounce off unharmed, yet the car is massively more heavy with more momentum. But if you were to give that beetle more mass in the same shell it would splat on the windscreen at the same speed.
Another metaphor.
So there is a point when it's better to be lighter than heavier.
But I suppose you're saying say if one beetle of the same kind has swallowed some lead and drank some redbull to give him the energy needed to fly at normal speed that beetle would damage the other beetle more should they collide.
Ah never mind. At least the matter is simple when hitting inanimate objects, rolling over, stopping, swerving etc. light is best.
 
I'm pretty sure your argument was based on weight rather than structure, is that not the whole basis of this discussion? That you think an electric car is more unsafe because it weighs more than a petrol equivalent?

You have appeared to ignore this paragraph:
pippin4652
Speed is a far more important factor when considering the potential damage in an accident. Velocity is squared when calculating kinetic energy, mass is not, so a small increase in speed will have a far greater effect on the severity of a crash than an increase in mass would.
Click to expand...
I'll explain it using your obscure metaphor, rather than the scientific fact I went with before: If you doubled the speed of the beetle, it is far more likely that it would splat than if you doubled its mass. In other words, the difference in mass between an electric car and its petrol equivalent has a pretty negligible effect on the crash worthiness.
blaaah
when a small beetle (insect not the car) hits the windscreen at a lowish speed it can bounce off unharmed,
Click to expand...

But in this collision it would be subjected to huge G-Forces that it is only able to cope with due to a mass of a couple of grams. Humans do not take kindly to feeling such heavy acceleration, it tends to do a fine job of mashing one's internal organs.
 
blaaah
True using my logic a petrol version being 200kgs lighter should get a better frontal impact score at speed. But unless It has completely eluded me they are electric only cars there is no petrol/diesel versions?
Click to expand...

The Mitsubishi "i" has been out for years. It has never been tested for EuroNCAP, but on the Japanese NCAP, it got 5/6... which is similar to what minicars like the Honda Fit (that got 4/5 on EuroNCAP) get (Honda's new Fit is a 6/6 J-NCAP car and is now 5/5 on EuroNCAP).
 
Would not want to crash in one of those dinky things. Although the safty rating appears to be above standard all i can see from the video is that the nearest crumple zone that isn't the 2inch hood is .. well... your face!
 
maSonn09
Would not want to crash in one of those dinky things. Although the safty rating appears to be above standard all i can see from the video is that the nearest crumple zone that isn't the 2inch hood is .. well... your face!
Click to expand...

Same speed I believe, same impact corner:



Size != crashworthiness.
 
Robin.
Um, you missed the point and those were rhetorical questions!, I was trying to show that there have been major changes to the car... a petrol tank and a battery are not going to crumple the same in an accident so to say that its an identical platform is nonsense.
Click to expand...

You do realise the car is rear-engined, right? And that they were crashing it into something forewards?

Everything forward of the rear axle is pretty much identical to the regular petrol car.

And there was nothing rhetorical about your questions that Toronado answered. It was quite clear you didn't know, so I expect Toronado's answers were quite useful.

So presuming this one:

Robin.
Wait so your telling me Mitsubishi didn't change one inch of that car for the electric version, didn't touch one bit of the chassis or internal structure...
Click to expand...

...wasn't rhetorical either, then no. They didn't change any of that. It's still a rear engined, rear drive car, regardless of whether it's electricity or petrol powering it.
 
Last edited:
Toronado
No. I completely understood the point. Rhetorical or not, the point that those questions were trying to prove was wrong, plain and simple. The platform is identical. The structure of the crumple zones are identical. The location of the powertrain is identical. Mitsubishi did not change anything. If you read the press release that they put out with the car, you'll note that it goes out of its way to mention how easy the transformation to a plug-in hybrid was, and they even noted specifics regarding the issue.

And since the batteries and motor are mounted dead center underneath and in the rear of the car, respectively, them having different physical characteristics to the petrol tank and engine would cause absolutely no change regarding frontal and side impact tests except for the difference in weight. A difference in weight which, I think it must be said, isn't really that much different from your typical base model sedan when compared to the top trim level (normal Mitsubishi i weighs around 900kg).
Click to expand...

I simply don't agree with what your saying, if they have changed stuff (however insignificant), especially the way it is powered, then its a different car.

homeforsummer
And there was nothing rhetorical about your questions that Toronado answered. It was quite clear you didn't know, so I expect Toronado's answers were quite useful.
Click to expand...

They were rhetorical because I was sarcastically pointing out the ignorance to the simple fact that if a model is powered with a different technology then it is in essence a different car!

homeforsummer
Everything forward of the rear axle is pretty much identical to the regular petrol car.
Click to expand...

And the rest isn't so its not the same car. Its like saying the Prius and the Prius EV are the same car.

Robin.
 
Last edited:
Honda Civic 2007 1251kgs frontal impact score 11.9
100px.gif

100px.gif

Honda Civic Hybrid 2007 1287kgs " " 11.2
100px.gif

100px.gif

legend-adultoccupant.gif

Only 36kgs heavier but does worse on the frontal impact test.
 
Robin.
They were rhetorical because I was sarcastically pointing out the ignorance to the simple fact that if a model is powered with a different technology then it is in essence a different car!

And the rest isn't so its not the same car. Its like saying the Prius and the Prius EV are the same car.
Click to expand...

And I'm telling you, you're wrong. Everything forward of the powertrain which sits right at the back is identical. Potential differences in weight aside it is no different to the regular car. And as someone already pointed out, they both get 4* ratings. To all intents and purposes the crash structure of the car is identical.

I'll say it again - electric cars are no less inherently safe than regular cars. Trying to claim otherwise is frankly utter rubbish. You should probably read this article about Volvo's C30 electric, which is structurally different to the petrol/diesel car but they've deliberately re-designed the crash structure to make it equally (if not more) safe. The redesign was necessary in the Volvo as it's front-engined - and obviously with no engine making up part of the crash structure, it needed redesigning.

Again, the Mitsubishi doesn't have this problem. The engine is at the back. The front is identical.

Blaaah - are those figures for the Euro market Civic or the USDM model? A 2007 European Civic is completely different to a 2007 European Civic hybrid. One is a hatch, one is a saloon.
 
blaaah
Yes but they are the same from the front structure to the driver?
Click to expand...

Fraid not. A 2007 Civic is one of these:

IMG_1807.JPG


A 2007 Civic hybrid is one of these:

Honda%20Civic%20Hybrid%20IMA%20240409%20(2).JPG


As US members will tell you, their Civic is completely different from ours, and the hybrid is basically a USDM Civic. Well, to be strictly accurate a JDM Civic.
 
The EDM Honda Civic is a completely different car from the USDM/JDM Honda Civic. They don't really even have overlap in engines. The platform is different. The bodywork is different. The interior is different.









Robin.
I simply don't agree with what your saying, if they have changed stuff (however insignificant), especially the way it is powered, then its a different car.
Click to expand...
And, quite frankly, I don't really care whether you agree or not.

Robin.
They were rhetorical because I was sarcastically pointing out the ignorance to the simple fact that if a model is powered with a different technology then it is in essence a different car!
Click to expand...
Except it isn't in the slightest. There have been EV versions of vehicles for nearly two decades, usually made to satisfy that stupid California emissions law from the mid-90s. Most of them up until now have been literally petrol versions with the engine and gas tank replaced with a motor and batteries. And that is all that was done.

Here's an experiment:
Can you tell me which one of these is an electric vehicle, and which one is not?
!C!+KeIwCWk~$(KGrHqF,!g0EzeC5NimiBNFs5itW9!~~_12.JPG

1999-Ford-Ranger-22102584-725.jpg
31893658.jpg


Diesels are powered by considerably different technology than normal petrol vehicles, and if changes are required they tend to be similar to those required for some EV cars (stronger suspension, movement of fuel systems, changed weight distribution, modified crash structure). Are you going to suddenly act as if every diesel version of every car ever sold is a completely different vehicle to the petrol versions? Because that is the exact same consideration.

Robin.
And the rest isn't so its not the same car. Its like saying the Prius and the Prius EV are the same car.
Click to expand...
It is like saying that, because those are also the same car.
 
Last edited:
To expound: The European Civic is based on the Honda Fit platform, and shares nothing with the US/Japan/International version.

They needed to go with the Fit platform because the rear multilink on the sedan/coupe would eat into the hatch space. And being on the Fit platform, everything is in a different place... even the fuel tank... which I'm assuming is under the front seats, as the EU Civic has the same folding seat trick as the Fit.
 
Why am I getting a sadistic pleasure in watching these electric cars get crashed? :D
 
blaaah
http://www.euroncap.com/results/toyota/IQ/347.aspx
Toyota IQ, maximum 5 stars, excellent car. 886kgs, 234kgs lighter!
Click to expand...
Lots of cars have 5 star crash test ratings. My mom's new Corolla has them in various categories. The price to pay is that the door armrest is literally 6 inches away from my elbow - I've measured it. The interior is so cavernous in order to protect occupants that it's downright uncomfortable.

I would much rather sacrifice my "safety" for a cozy cockpit with armrests that are within, well, an arm's length.
 
If you need an arm rest you're not driving fast enough.

No, but really the most safe cars would also be the most cosiest.
You would have an almost all enveloping seat structure, or be moulded into the cabin with full harness. The more you are part of the car the less far your body organs/parts have to go in an impact.
What you are describing is possibly just bad ergonomic design.
 
blaaah
If you need an arm rest you're not driving fast enough.

No, but really the most safe cars would also be the most cosiest.
You would have an almost all enveloping seat structure, or be moulded into the cabin with full harness. The more you are part of the car the less far your body organs/parts have to go in an impact.
What you are describing is possibly just bad ergonomic design.
Click to expand...
Actually, what we should do is distinguish "safety" and "satisfying Department of Transportation safety regulations".

Obviously car makers naturally want their cars to be safe, but much of their design efforts go specifically to satisfying government requirements - because if they don't, they can't sell the car.
 
blaaah
If you need an arm rest you're not driving fast enough.

No, but really the most safe cars would also be the most cosiest.
You would have an almost all enveloping seat structure, or be moulded into the cabin with full harness. The more you are part of the car the less far your body organs/parts have to go in an impact.
What you are describing is possibly just bad ergonomic design.
Click to expand...
The crucial part is how far your organs move inside your body. If your body just stops, your organs don't. If your head just stops, your brain hits the inside of your skull and that's not good.

Cars have crash structures in order to slow you down gradually. I believe seatbelts will also give a bit and this lets your body move a bit in order to stop your organs from hitting each other.
 

Latest Posts

Back