[autobahnjpr]

This is a very lively discussion. Let me add my two cents
It seems there are two camps here - one saying and believing truly that having ABS and Airbag will be a great safety feature and that it should be mandated. The other trying to defend the statement of Mr RCB and saying that it depends on the context. Even if you add and mandate these two, it is not guaranteed that you will be safer.
Safety for me is the ability of the vehicle to protect my life in case of an accident due to mine or others fault. And accidents can and do happen in spite of all the measures we might take. Is ABS/AirBag equipped car safer than a tractor/bolero? We saw an super safe Audi T-boning a truck and I am quite sure the truck driver was not injured much. Then truck is a safer vehicle because it protected its owner. If you rear-end an ABS/AirBag car on a tractor will anything happen to the tractor? I doubt.
So, first of all, to increase safety, the authorities should make the roads safe for commuting. Ensure only eligible drivers and vehicles are allowed, there is adequate patrolling and stringent fines and punishments in case of lapses.
Secondly coming to the vehicle, I personally feel that the sheet metal of cars should be much thicker than it is today. The whole jargon of crumpled zones, cross bars is all gas. We should have thick and strong metal first and foremost to ensure metal does not crumple like paper on collision.
Thirdly, people should cultivate the habit of easy driving. ABS, Airbag may be very effective when you are redlining but if you drive with alertness between 80-90 kmph, I am sure their effectiveness will be greatly diminished because today's car even without these two are sufficiently advanced. The amount of time you will save by driving at 120+ or the risk you take because of that is not worth it.
Bracing myself for brickbats.

[Mr.ASG]

Originally Posted by autobahnjpr

Is ABS/AirBag equipped car safer than a tractor/bolero?

Mostly yes, Unless the cars we compare are structurally weak.

Originally Posted by autobahnjpr

We saw an super safe Audi T-boning a truck and I am quite sure the truck driver was not injured much.

Yet again trucks can't be replaced by cars.

Originally Posted by autobahnjpr

If you rear-end an ABS/AirBag car on a tractor will anything happen to the tractor?

Any day ABS & Airbag can help occupants.

Originally Posted by autobahnjpr

So, first of all, to increase safety, the authorities should make the roads safe for commuting. Ensure only eligible drivers and vehicles are allowed, there is adequate patrolling and stringent fines and punishments in case of lapses.

Spot on

Originally Posted by autobahnjpr

Secondly coming to the vehicle, I personally feel that the sheet metal of cars should be much thicker than it is today. The whole jargon of crumpled zones, cross bars is all gas. We should have thick and strong metal first and foremost to ensure metal does not crumple like paper on collision.

Crumple zones does helps in cars safety, The point is that Japaneses manufactures can bring equally safe cars with the need of less amount of sheet metal thickness, quite an achievement IMHO.

[mallumowgli]

Originally Posted by autobahnjpr

Secondly coming to the vehicle, I personally feel that the sheet metal of cars should be much thicker than it is today. The whole jargon of crumpled zones, cross bars is all gas. We should have thick and strong metal first and foremost to ensure metal does not crumple like paper on collision.

Vow vow!! That's quite a revelation. Can you explain why crumple zones and cross bars are all gas? And how does sheet metal prevent car crumpling? It is like saying that the load of your apartment is supported by the walls and not by its pillars!!

[autobahnjpr]

Originally Posted by mallumowgli

Vow vow!! That's quite a revelation. Can you explain why crumple zones and cross bars are all gas? And how does sheet metal prevent car crumpling? It is like saying that the load of your apartment is supported by the walls and not by its pillars!!

It is my opinion because at some point of time car manufacturers have to assure the consumer that we are taking adequate protection for you even when we make cars lighter. you can discard it. does not matter.
To test, try rear ending or front ending into the truck/tractor cross bar or for greater measure in a road roller. you will get your answer.
Instead of asking/questioning me, it would have been better if you had given some proof/data to say why it is not gas. It would help in changing my opinion.

Secondly, i am only talking about "thickness" and nothing else. To support higher weight and more safety, people increase the thickness of pillars in their houses. Large structures have thicker pillars. this also in my opinion.
Where are walls coming into picture?

[mallumowgli]

Originally Posted by autobahnjpr

Secondly, i am only talking about "thickness" and nothing else. To support higher weight and more safety, people increase the thickness of pillars in their houses. Large structures have thicker pillars. this also in my opinion.
Where are walls coming into picture?

Reason being - the cross bars/body frame are the pillars - the crumple zones, the passenger cell etc. The sheet metals are the walls.

The strength to the car body is provided by the frame, or the steel tubes, frames etc. The impact energy in case of an accident is absorbed by the crumple zone, designed in such a way that it dissipates the energy away from the rigid passenger cell, which again is a frame (similar to pillars)

The sheet metal is just a skin (and hence the comparison to walls), and takes less/ no part in impact energy absorption or dissipation

I think there is another thread on this

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by autobahnjpr

To test, try rear ending or front ending into the truck/tractor cross bar or for greater measure in a road roller. you will get your answer.

Being but human, I often wish that I was driving a vehicle with simple paintwork and 1/8th steel panels --- but when I get mad, it is a good thing I am not: I could get myself into a lot of trouble.

We could do a lot more damage to others in such a vehicle, but vehicle design for safety is not just about us: it is about others as well.

Instead of asking/questioning me, it would have been better if you had given some proof/data to say why it is not gas.

No. The onus is fairly and squarely on you to show why several decades of evolution in vehicle design is, according to you, wrong.

Would you like to go back to the days when a heavy chassis and no crumple zones meant impaling yourself on the solid steel steering column?

Secondly, i am only talking about "thickness" and nothing else. To support higher weight and more safety, people increase the thickness of pillars in their houses. Large structures have thicker pillars. this also in my opinion.

It was not a good analogy. Buildings do not have to be designed to cope with collision risks.

[autobahnjpr]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

It was not a good analogy. Buildings do not have to be designed to cope with collision risks.

I did not create this analogy.

[Thad E Ginathom]

I didn't intend to say that you did!

[SaurabhSaran]

Originally Posted by autobahnjpr

ABS, Airbag may be very effective when you are redlining but if you drive with alertness between 80-90 kmph, I am sure their effectiveness will be greatly diminished because today's car even without these two are sufficiently advanced.

Incase of emergency braking ABS do make a difference, it helps to stop without skidding and driver can change the direction of vehicle where as in the case of Non-ABS car, the vehicle will skid and driver will loose control on the car.

Even at 80-90 KMPH, under emergency braking car without ABS will skid and the driver will have no control on the vehicle as car will not respond on the inputs from the steering and it is worst on wet roads.

May be you will change your opinion after watching this video.

video

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by autobahnjpr

ABS, Airbag may be very effective when you are redlining but if you drive with alertness between 80-90 kmph, I am sure their effectiveness will be greatly diminished because today's car even without these two are sufficiently advanced.

This totally incorrect information. 80-90 Kmph is actually the maximum speed limit on most highways.
ABS might prevent the accident itself. But in case of an accidents, however advanced the car might be, the occupants bang against the car body and that is what air bags prevent. This will effective even when the speed is zero (if somebody bangs a standing car).

[sourabhzen]

Originally Posted by autobahnjpr

To test, try rear ending or front ending into the truck/tractor cross bar or for greater measure in a road roller. you will get your answer.
Instead of asking/questioning me, it would have been better if you had given some proof/data to say why it is not gas. It would help in changing my opinion.

Secondly, i am only talking about "thickness" and nothing else. To support higher weight and more safety, people increase the thickness of pillars in their houses. Large structures have thicker pillars. this also in my opinion.
Where are walls coming into picture?

You may want to own something as heavy as a tractor, road roller or a truck with the similar fuel economy and be safe or you may opt for modern cars. You may also look into various examples of loss of lives when two of the vehicles of above mention class are involved in a rear end or front end collision.

You are correct in mentioning that large structures have thicker columns but at the same time small houses do not have thicker columns. Moreover, people are trying to invent lighter walls and other building elements to reduce the thickness of the columns while keeping it safe. Using the same analogy, study the structure (particularly walls) of Assam type house and you will get few of the answers.

[gomzi]

While there is so much attention on the frontal collision tests, any idea how these cars fare on side impacts?

I'd opened my car door to change the speakers and noticed that apart from the door frame there was nothing except the outer body panel to protect passengers.

If we do have safety regulations for cars, I feel adequate importance should be given for side impacts as well mainly because our roads are not scientifically designed/laid out as the ones in western countries.
Here there are often multiple intersections where more than 5-6 roads converge at acute angles to each other, so side impacts are very likely. Sorry if this is

[saket77]

Originally Posted by gomzi

While there is so much attention on the frontal collision tests, any idea how these cars fare on side impacts?

I'd opened my car door to change the speakers and noticed that apart from the door frame there was nothing except the outer body panel to protect passengers.

Dear Gomzi,

Next time you have an opportunity to have a peek inside, try to look on to the lower quarter of the door, you might notice a couple of tubular bars (or at least one) running across the door area. These bars, known as side impact beams, are placed as such they provide structural sturdiness and spread the effect of impact on the body shell than just the door.

Here is a picture for clearer understanding. The bars in orange are side impact beams.

Regards.

[sridhar-v]

Originally Posted by autobahnjpr

Secondly coming to the vehicle, I personally feel that the sheet metal of cars should be much thicker than it is today. The whole jargon of crumpled zones, cross bars is all gas. We should have thick and strong metal first and foremost to ensure metal does not crumple like paper on collision.
Bracing myself for brickbats.

It is not as simple as only section thickness. The Load carrying capacity of any structural member is depandent on many factors. Thickness is one of the minor factors. It comes into play more to provide vibration resistance across an unsupported area.

What is important is how the energy of impact is dissipated across the structure and the rate of transfer of energy to the occupants along with the specific pressure at the points it is transferred. A large truck will have more kinetic energy compared to a small sedan/hatch and hence the truck will always be at an advantage in the energy transfer equation.

There is a video on you tube, from UK program Fifth gear, where they simulated a crash between an old Volvo(with thick metal!) and a modern car. Watch it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDy...ExF827lGGTm1kg

[Thad E Ginathom]

That is absolutely fascinating. Although I would have put my money on the right car, what actually happened is not at all what I expected.

I thought, that the front end of the Volvo would survive better, but the cabin would be badly damaged, with dashboard, steering column, etc, being forced back onto, and seriously injuring the occupants. I was right about the important bit: what happened to the front section is a bit academic, except that it still got destroyed, but didn't do a great job of absorbing any impact.

By the way, I'm biased. I love those old wardrobe-on-wheels Volvos, and I lapped up the sales spiel about them being safe. I'd have loved to drive one. But having seen that, now, maybe not so much.