Christ, that video. Its one of the few times a rollover has looked dangerous to me, that was violent. Usually a rollover is a nice gentle way to stop moving. Its amazing that a fairly benign 30mph rollover killed a family of 4 last year in my town, here the driver walked away with "minor injuries". Rollovers are the kind of crash I can make the least sense of. There's usually no violent change in direction, it just tumbles a few times to a (relatively) gentle stop when you aren't going very fast. so I often wonder how they are so massively fatal at low speed.
I think it has a lot to do with roof strength - a race car with a stiff roll cage will harmlessly bounce with maybe 5-10 Gs per impact, while a regular production car, especially one with poor roof strength, will just have the roof cave in on the occupants' heads. The roof acts like a crumple zone when it shouldn't.
You're right about the roof, but I think he was talking about how fast it was flipping. That must have pulled an ass ton of g's
Spinning quickly doesn't necessarily mean tons of G-forces, unless you're really far from the pivot point or you're extraordinarily tall
While it isn't necessarily a car crash video, I think this video will show that real cars *are* jelly cars... Go to 0.20 through 0.22, and look at the right front wheel of the white Dodge Challenger from Vanishing Point. Wobbles like crazy, even though it's attached with solid metal! Also, this, look at the front wheel AND the front bumper as the car comes down around the 0.26 mark. Again, solid steel, attached with solid steel... Wobbles like jelly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ5PcWziXT0 How cars have progressed in safety performance. I always was amazed at this video, really goes to show you that bigger isn't always better.
You have to understand that this video is very skewed. The 1959 Impala was the weakest car of the era, because it had a very simple X-frame with no side-rails. A ton of other cars had a full frame with an X-frame inside it, which was way stronger and would've taken the blow without such severe passenger cell deformation. A 49 Cadillac like the one I made for example, would plow way further into that Malibu because it has a full frame. Compare: On top of that, there has been some argueing on wheither or not the engine was in the Impala at the time. I would argue that there WAS an engine in the car. However, the Malibu collided with it at such an offset, that it completely missed the frame of the Impala(or hit just 1 frame-rail), missed the engine completely(pushing it out of the way to the side), and thus just hitting sheet metal. If they would hit head-on, the engine on the Impala would prevent a lot of the deformation on the front because it would get pushed into the firewall(which isn't exactly safe, but hey), and the results would be way less dramatic. The video was made solely to show the general public "Look how good the 2009 Malibu is, you should totally replace the 5-10 year old car you have and buy a new one!". Anyone can imagine how much car safety has improved over the years. You don't need to find out by actually testing it, because you can't improve the safety of the old car anyway. It's like testing out if a new computer is faster than a 20 year old one... On top of that, it was a waste of a very restorable, beautiful classic car that belongs with someone who cares for it, and doing things like this to a classic should imho be a punishable offence, just like ruining a Rembrandt is.
That would never happen, the automotive empire and their lobbyists want the old cars off the road ASAP. Far too reliable compared to anything built after the early 90s.. Hence why I will never buy anything built after 1989, up to 91 depending on the vehicle.
I kinda trust the IHS, they operate to the dismay of so many car companies by introducing hard crash tests and showing the public how terribly they perform while the companies keep whining about how a "safe 40mph impact is impossible" in contrast to today. Hell, even the small overlap test they started recently was to the annoyance of ALOT of car companies. Even Mercedes Benz objected to the tests. "As a leader in automotive safety, we have full confidence in the protection that the C-Class affords its occupants -- and less confidence in any test that doesn't reflect that," Translation; "I reject your reality and substitute my own, where we didn't flunk the small overlap test. Even though your leg was crushed, our car is much safer than the Honda civic that did surprisingly well and protected it's occupants" They probably did it on purpose still and you have to remember its a PR campaign probably for them. They wanted as big a contrast as possible between old and new to showcase "Look what we forced car companies to do! Modern cars are very nice. you could have dinner in here, its a luxury fucking car crash and so comfortable!". Its true, old cars aren't as safe in a high speed impact and they managed to raise some more public awareness about themselves. Everyone talks about this video. A week later they grilled car companies for absolutely atrocious bumper design where a 5mph impact caused about ten grand's worth of damage and a year later started introducing small overlap tests. They're not working for car companies, if you want to know how a car company without the IHS would handle safety then you need look no further than China where they do cut costs at your expense to make an extra buck selling you a new car.
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/crash-cliches-high-speed-2.htm Look at the exhaust and body flex on the hatchback and the Mercedes! It's exactly as "omg jelly car" as BeamNG! Even the doors on the Volvo flex quite a lot when it lands! EDIT: This one is quite fun too, @11.37. Yeah, I know, poor Impala... But look at that perfect flip in mid-air!
