[rpm]

Today I came across Van Compatibility Test series by EURO NCAP on YouTube which showed a crash between a van and a compact SUV. While watching the video, I realised that it might serve as a platform to understand how weight differences and differences in body structures (the van having higher ground clearance and hence a structure that is higher up from the ground which does not line up with the relatively lower body structure of the compact SUV) may affect the occupants in a crash.


I don't have much to add to EURO NCAP's remarks, so I'll just post the relevant links and documents and let them do the talking.

Some things to note:
1. The Van (Nissan NV400) didn't have a crash test rating (not that I could find one anyway) and had a crash weight of 2848 Kg
2. The compact SUV (Nissan Juke) in question is rated 5 star by EURO NCAP and had a crash weight of 1487 Kg

The Video:

https://youtu.be/iNK49w5VtSs

The article:
https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-...y-test-series/

Note: The article is different from the one linked in the video because I feel it contains more relevant information to the topic being discussed. That aside, everyone is free to check the one in the video description out too.

The test summary report pdf:
https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/61174...ary-report.pdf

A glimpse of the same (for those of you who don't want to go through the hassle of downloading the pdf and just want a quick peek )

Mods, please merge this into a relevant thread if needed.

[abhishek46]

Is it fair then to assume that a 'heavier' car would be safer in a real accident?

And vice-versa for a 'light' car? I.e. Very Safe in a lab controlled collision with a barrier, but only mediocre in a head-on scenario, especially with vehicles with more mass.

[rpm]

Originally Posted by abhishek46

Is it fair then to assume that a 'heavier' car would be safer in a real accident?

And vice-versa for a 'light' car? I.e. Very Safe in a lab controlled collision with a barrier, but only mediocre in a head-on scenario, especially with vehicles with more mass.

The article linked in the post states that the 'van dominates the crash' which is backed up by the data in the pdf

Things to note:
1. The Van didn't have a passenger side airbag and also didn't have a crash test rating.
2. Van was loaded to half its total capacity, weighing 2848 Kg.
3. The Van has a total Gross Vehicle Mass limit of 3500 Kg.
4. The article also mentions that Van didn't seem to be designed to withstand much overload.

Some relevant excerpts from the 2 articles (one in the video description and the other in the post)

In a crash, the geometric misalignment, stiff structures, and higher mass tend to penalise the occupants of the smaller vehicle, resulting in a higher likelihood of a serious injury or fatality in the passenger car.

The Juke’s optimised body, crash structures and occupant restraints perform well, but this cannot prevent the high deceleration and large intrusions caused by the van’s stiff driver-side longitudinal.

As would be typical for any crash involving vans, the difficulty with the high mass of the vehicle is that the relative risk is higher for passengers in the lighter vehicle. That the results were not much worse for the car’s occupants is a consequence purely of the Juke’s inherent crashworthiness.
This crash scenario is typical for vans, yet idealised, for the outcome of such an accident in the real world could be much worse, particularly for smaller or older passenger cars, or at higher speeds.

Despite being in the larger vehicle, both occupants in the commercial van show a high risk of injury to the chest, knee, femur and pelvis. The driver and passenger of the car show increased risk of chest, knee, femur, pelvis as well as the lower extremities, compared to the official 2019 Offset Deformable Barrier test results.