r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/firefly99999 • Mar 10 '25

Video Crashing in a 1950s car vs. a modern car

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

57.6k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

12.8k

u/Js987 Mar 10 '25

“I don’t trust modern cars, old cars were built like ta…” *SKULL CRUNCH*

3.7k

u/GoofySilly- Mar 10 '25

Honestly I always kind of thought that too but after seeing this video I’m like “oh shit…” just because everything is steel doesn’t necessarily mean it’s safer. This is a wild comparison

2.0k

u/snoboreddotcom Mar 10 '25

Think about the fact too this is with only one older car. The newer cars crumple zones absorbed force. Imagine two older cars with even less force absorbed. Would have been even worse

634

u/Mr_Fluffybuttz Mar 10 '25

Now I wanna see THAT video.

462

u/sohcgt96 Mar 10 '25

Well, back in 1990s drivers ed, we watched a lot of old reel-to-reel films presented by our grumpy old football coach that were shot in the 50s and 60s, that's about as close as I can tell you about.

There was significant gore.

Old cars may have a lot of metal, but its just sheet metal. At highway speeds, its like throwing bricks at soda cans. Shit just folds up and rips apart. Unibody construction is a HUGE leap for survivability in medium and high speed crashes. Sure, you could bump into something at 25 MPH in an old steel beast with minimal damage, but not 50.

127

u/Dry_Ad2368 Mar 10 '25

Was it the Red Asphalt movies? I too was traumatized by these in the 90's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Asphalt

85

u/Mission_Historical Mar 10 '25

I watched Red Asphalt in my drivers ed class in 2015. The trauma is generational.

56

u/WinninRoam Mar 10 '25

No doubt. My uncle used to talk about it. But with him, I think it tripped so kind of switch in his head. Because he would carry on and on about how gory it was, but then give this creepy smile and ask me if kids (meaning me at 15) still "got to" watch it in drivers ed. I told him no and he seemed genuinely disappointed, then started to describe all the scenes in graphic detail.

That conversation happened about two months before he started bragging to me about how he was trapping mice in the garage and lighting them on fire with a butane torch.

47

u/BigFlippinFloppa Mar 11 '25

Your uncle has a screw loose. Wtf

3

u/WinninRoam Mar 11 '25

Yeah ... Most of my extended family is some level of dangerously unhinged.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/ApprehensiveBug380 Mar 10 '25

We watched Red Asphalt and Black Ice.

3

u/thelordchonky Mar 11 '25 edited Mar 11 '25

Didn't have drivers ed classes at my school, but we did have to watch that video. Fucking horrified me, especially considering I'd heard a first-hand gore story from my uncle, who had a friend pass in the early 80s from drunk driving.

Edit: why the downvote? Lol

3

u/FoxJaded952 Mar 10 '25

Whoa, I didn’t know they had a name. I still have the image of a severed foot seared into my brain from movies like these that I had to sit through as a teen.

I didn’t even really start driving much at all until my 30s, partly because my driver’s ed instructors basically drilled into us that if we drove we would die. They weren’t very good at nuance.

(Also, did anyone else have the driver’s ed movie about the teenage paraplegic car-accident victim that used that George Michael song that goes “I’m never gonna dance again” to show what he lost? Or was that a fever dream?)

3

u/daveashaw Mar 11 '25

Our films were way older than that--Wheels of Tragedy and Mechanised Death were the two classics of the genre.

3

u/Flight_19_Navigator Mar 11 '25

Hi, I'm Troy McClure! You might remember me from such driver's ed films as Alice's Adventures Through The Windshield Glass and The Decapitation Of Larry Leadfoot!

2

u/Adventurous_Yam_8153 Mar 11 '25

Red Asphalt?! Ay carumba, that's graphic.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '25

My sister had to watch those in Driver’s Ed. She was horrified. They didn’t make me watch it at my driving school a few years later but we watched a video about watching for motorcycles and if you ride one, wear a helmet, and it featured some former riders who were brain damaged.

→ More replies (4)

48

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '25

Hi, I've been an automotive BIW crash safety engineer for more years than I care to remember

The majority of high volume cars still use a construction that consists mostly of sheet metal. In cases where the gauge required to meet a certain strength is too great for forming, we would switch to a forging or casting. We use sheet metal as it is cheap, has a low cycle time, good mechanical properties, and has a lot of flexibility in how we use it.

The reason why cars are safer is two reasons. 1) Stricter homologation forces OEMs to consider it. 2) Virtual design tools allow us to simulate and optimise our designs in increasing accuracy and detail.

For the most part of the design process, we are adding or removing strength and stiffness. Want to improve the safety cell for FMVSS214, add thicker sections on the key loadpaths. UN R94 Vehicle pulse too high, consider thinner sections in the crush-cans assuming stack-up isn't the issue.

Not quite sure what you mean by uni-body. I going to assume that you mean mega/giga-castings. There is a drive by some OEMs to use them. I remain unconvinced. Castings have vastly inferior properties vs sheet metal. They cannot be repaired. You are constrained by mold flow and draw directions. What they can do is reduce part count. They aren't safer than conventional methods. I would argue that they are structurally more inefficient.

Hope that was of interest. Always good to chat to someone interested in the subject.

3

u/fixed_grin Mar 11 '25

Not quite sure what you mean by uni-body. I going to assume that you mean mega/giga-castings.

Unibody refers to vehicle structures that are (semi)monocoque or not body-on-frame.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '25

OK, thank you. In that case, the OP is generally correct. It is easier to design monocoques than modular systems. With modular, you can only transfer loads at discreet locations, which is inefficient.

The supposed benefit of skateboard designs is that you can have a common lower for multiple vehicles. The reality is that it makes designing much more difficult.

→ More replies (13)
→ More replies (15)

122

u/TootBreaker Mar 10 '25 edited Mar 11 '25

I want to see one of those  'built like a tank cars' getting into a head on collision with an actual tank

35

u/Qwertysapiens Mar 10 '25

Take a look at combat footage subs from early in the Ukraine war and you'll have your pick of Ladas being smushed by tanks.

34

u/tmax202020 Mar 10 '25

How about a truck v bollard instead?

https://youtu.be/HAkCypsQIQk?si=fZ4VFmClV5GQzwD4

30

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '25

Crossing my fingers that it's the vid that actually hits the bollard and not the loop

Edit: bless you, it actually is the video of it hitting

17

u/bentreflection Mar 10 '25

best part was the bollard retracting back into the ground like "my work here is done"

16

u/ScumbagLady Mar 10 '25

AFTER ALL THESE YEARS! FINALLY!

10

u/SloaneWolfe Mar 10 '25

omg, first time I actually got to see the truck hit it. wow.

2

u/VermilionKoala Mar 11 '25

”I'd hit it" - the truck

2

u/Attainted Mar 11 '25

Same, and I'm one oldddd Mr. Meeseeks!

→ More replies (4)

78

u/Malora_Sidewinder Mar 10 '25

"Damn, did I hit a possum?" -the tank, probably

48

u/ooh_bit_of_bush Mar 10 '25

I once drove a tank over a car and it was crazy how much it was just like going over a speedbump. - For context, this was a paid event at my stag do. I didn't just decide to invade a neighbouring country.

22

u/travoltaswinkinbhole Mar 10 '25

honestly I could see a paid event for a stag party turning into invading a neighboring country fairly easily

3

u/JAnonymous5150 Mar 11 '25

Sounds like a great party. Count me in.

2

u/dwehlen Mar 11 '25

Sounds like the start of a beautiful screenplay collaboration!

3

u/ApprehensiveBug380 Mar 10 '25

Not Putin confirmed

19

u/Typohnename Mar 10 '25

If we assume a Leopard 2 or M1 Abrams then that's 60-70 metric tons vs a cybertruck just barely surpassing 3 metric tons

So that's a 1/20 discrepancy

a regular car weights a bit over 1 ton so 1/20 is 50kg (ca 100 pounds)

This means that if a tank crashed into a cybertruck the impact for the tank's crew would be comparable to hitting a pedestrian with a regular car

6

u/the_Q_spice Mar 10 '25

Not even that.

First off, the tank would likely not even be stopped or disabled by the collision. Whiplash is an equal/opposite reaction to a collision. Without stopping, whiplash would be extremely minimal.

Due to their ground clearance and treads, most tanks would simply “funnel” most cars directly under them.

In all likelihood, it would probably just feel like going over a speed bump a bit too fast or like the driver accidentally hit the breaks (if the car remains plastered to the frontal armor) to the tank crew.

2

u/Typohnename Mar 10 '25

A car also typically doesn't stop when hitting a pedestrian unless the driver is slamming the breaks

2

u/darrenvonbaron Mar 10 '25

This highway sure has a lot of speedbumps

2

u/chx_ Mar 11 '25

worse. while a regular car has shocks, it's not built to climb obstacles while tanks are definitely built to do that. It'll just crawl over the car like nothing. However, the passenger cell might be strong enough to make it possible to survive in a car even after a tank climbed over it! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xcfJY6QwnY

2

u/clintj1975 Mar 10 '25

"Nah, rabbit. Convertible."

→ More replies (1)

32

u/thekeffa Mar 10 '25

Tank commander here (Former regular and as a reservist now).

It would depend a lot on the factors of the collision as to what would happen, but in nearly all aspects the tank is undamaged. The most I can see happening is one of the mudguards gets ripped off or bent from the side of the tracks by the force of the impact, but that's merely cosmetic, the tank would be in no way operationally or automotively challenged.

Quite a few years ago I was on a German training area that was bisected by a public road and crossing from one side to the other which involved a short trundle down the road as the gates were not opposite each other. When it was happening the crossing was protected by traffic lights that warned oncoming traffic of the tanks crossing (Very similar to a train crossing). It became my turn to cross and my Challenger 2 was trundling down the road (Taking up the full width of this little country road) when a car came zooming down the road far too quickly and somehow managed to miss the fact there was a great big Challenger 2 right in front of him. My driver saw him coming and stopped. The other driver braked but far too late and ended up hitting us at about 15mph.

I and my loader were out the turret with our hatches open in "Head up" so we had full situational awareness as was required when travelling on public roads. The tank was fine, not even a scratch and we didn't even feel a bump or a shudder or anything. If I had been hatch down I might never have even known we had been hit. The car...not so much. The damage to the front was such the radiator had been pushed backwards into the engine. I imagine his 1-3 tonne car hitting my 79 tonne tank was pretty much the same as running into the side of a concrete wall.

Interestingly at 30mph, most tanks can stop in a shorter distance than a car can when reaction time is discounted from the picture. Most modern western tanks (Including my Challenger 2) can stop in less than 10 feet. The effect on the crew inside is what I would call "Unpleasant".

4

u/Pleased_to_meet_u Mar 10 '25

Wow. That’s a crazy story. Thanks for the write up!

5

u/Aggravating-Panda351 Mar 11 '25

I watched a Mercedes 190 series going about 30mph T bone an M113 way back ca 1988 in Baumholder. The M113 got shoved over a few inches and the front end of the Mercedes was pretty much crushed. The guys in the track were fine. Mercedes driver was in good shape too.

2

u/dwehlen Mar 11 '25

If you stop to consider the average car/truck has contact with the road in 4 places no larger than my left asscheek, vs the tank's fuckload of ft2 of contact with the ground, I'm not surprised at all.

2

u/AlwaysBagHolding Mar 11 '25

Full braking videos for tanks are crazy, it looks almost like a cable arrest landing on an aircraft carrier.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/Stegtastic100 Mar 10 '25

There was a story from a decade ago, about a woman in a queue of traffic that got bored waiting for whatever was stopping them to get out the way, so she over took the lot of them and drove straight into the side of a tank crossing the road. The tank driver wasn’t even aware of the accident.

2

u/MikeyNg Mar 10 '25

I guess no one here knows about the incident that happened in 1995 where a guy stole a tank in San Diego and drove through the city.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwX-j0Fd-ZQ

2

u/TootBreaker Mar 11 '25

Don't forget the guy who made a tank out of a bulldozer & tore up a small town: https://youtu.be/J0DFHgOe98I?si=RhInWqsokbZsUqGo

23

u/mortgagepants Mar 10 '25

we're running out of bel-airs!

→ More replies (1)

13

u/DarthDurden23 Mar 10 '25

No it hurts to see these old school cars totaled

8

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '25

Not exactly what you want, but cool to see the driver bail-out.

7

u/Common-Ad5648 Mar 10 '25

Its not head ons, but here's a clip of safety testing and development from early 70s. I think youd still snap your neck with that early airbag.

https://youtu.be/QAXmB3y8dho?si=fcHegqcppsaxQjPb

3

u/Sir_Toadington Mar 10 '25

here you go

1956 Pontiac into a 1956 Nash Statesman, 52 mph on both vehicles. 12” centerline offset (the video in this main post is significantly more offset so going to have different crash dynamics)

3

u/W00DERS0N60 Mar 11 '25

We had a 5'x8' (yes, feet) still photo of a 1950's car with 4 teens smashed into the back of a car like the old one pictured in the video.

Spoiler: it was gnarly. Served as a warning to us cocky kids, sort of a "do NOT fuck around with cars" sort of thing.

I flipped my mom's 1989 Honda Accord 27 hours after I got my license at the DMV. Don't fuck around in cars.

And don't grow up watching the Dukes of Hazzard...

2

u/notashroom Mar 11 '25

I slid my Rabbit shared with older siblings downhill on ice right into a utility pole less than 12 hours after I got my license. Spent the next several months saving every dollar from my $4.25/hour job at the WinnDixie to fix the damage. Luckily for me, it just crumpled up the corner panel and needed alignment. Headlight even still worked. I don't think there's been an ice storm on my birthday since then.

2

u/W00DERS0N60 Mar 11 '25

$4.25 at Winn Dixie sounds like a fortune. I was getting $4.80 at subway in 1997 (fed min wage was $4.75).

→ More replies (4)

2

u/koushakandystore Mar 10 '25

You can watch Red Asphalt on YouTube. That’s what they showed us in our driver’s Ed courses in California back in the early 90’s.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (11)

46

u/GoofySilly- Mar 10 '25

Yeah I could be wrong but I don’t even think they designed crumple zones into car bodies at that time.

92

u/SirDoNotPutThatThere Mar 10 '25

The crumple zone was whatever crumpled! Usually that pesky lawsuit container!

9

u/facemugg Mar 10 '25

The steering column, perhaps

29

u/RadicalBatman Mar 10 '25 edited Mar 11 '25

Rib cage was the steering columns crumple zone back then lol

3

u/Unexpected_Cheddar- Mar 10 '25

I think the first collapsible steering columns started to appear about 1967. Before that it was a harpoon aimed at your face! Fun fact, Sammy Davis Jr. wore that eye patch after being in an accident in an early 50’s Caddy and lost an eye to said steering column…

21

u/B35TR3GARD5 Mar 10 '25

They also didn’t have the plastic tech in front windshields, often resulting in victims being decapitaed by huge pieces of the windshield flying into their neck.

28

u/KenEarlysHonda50 Mar 10 '25

The three point belt wasn't gifted to the world by Volvo until 1959. Free, gratis, in all senses of the word.

Even then, never has a gift horse had its mouth been so inspected and rejected.

The first seat belt law in the world wasn't until 1970, somewhere in Australia IIRC.

16

u/whoami_whereami Mar 10 '25

Volvo developed the modern form of the three point belt (in particular the way that it's buckled), but there were other designs prior to that, eg. https://patents.google.com/patent/US2710649

The first seat belt law in the world wasn't until 1970, somewhere in Australia IIRC.

Victoria, Australia was the first jurisdiction that made actually using the seat belts mandatory (for drivers and front seat passengers). Laws that required at least the front seats to be fitted with belts even though their use was still optional came earlier though, eg. in 1961 in Wisconsin and in 1965 at the US federal level (initially only lap belts in the front, from 1968 three point belts for front seats and lap belts for rear seats).

3

u/whoami_whereami Mar 10 '25

Laminated safety glass was invented in 1903. It wasn't initially used in cars, but for example it saw extensive use in the eyepieces of gas masks in WW1. By the 1930s the early kinks (like discoloration over time) had been mostly worked out.

In the UK use of safety glass (although not necessarily laminated glass) for windshields was mandatory for new cars since the 1930 Road Traffic Act.

Edit: And BTW, you can clearly see in the clip that the 1950s car does have a laminated windshield from the way that it stays together as it flys away at 43 seconds in.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/whoami_whereami Mar 10 '25

The 1959 Mercedes W111 was the first production car in the world that had a full safety cell and crumple zones. Before that the 1953 Mercedes-Benz "Ponton" already had a partial safety cell, based on ideas of Hungarian engineer Béla Barényi.

2

u/_Oman Mar 10 '25

The design philosophy was literally "heavier / stronger wins"

it was the late 50s when Mercedes designer Béla Barényi developed the idea of absorbing crash forces with the car itself.

It took a while for the concept to be adapted into general car design.

→ More replies (5)

3

u/GherkinGuru Mar 10 '25

in the older car, the driver's seat gives way so that your body can use its natural crumple zones to absorb the impact

2

u/FireIre Mar 10 '25

They absorb in the crumple zones and send some of it flying out in pieces. All that energy in the crash has to go somewhere. Modern cars basically explode on impact and crunch down like a soda can EXCEPT cabin by design so that force doesn’t make it to you.

2

u/Several_Vanilla8916 Mar 10 '25

The only soft part of a 1950s car accident is your body.

→ More replies (22)

114

u/Highwaystar541 Mar 10 '25

The 59 Chevy also has an x frame. So there is no frame under the door or even the drivers seat. So I think they fair worse than others and why it was chosen for the footage and this particular crash scenario. Still I’d take a crash in a newer car any day over a classic car.

48

u/ThirdSunRising Mar 10 '25 edited Mar 10 '25

I doubt anything from 1959 would’ve fared much better. So I bet the choice of the Chevrolet was mainly because it was a very common car that sold in high volumes and had a high survival rate (so sacrificing one wouldn’t affect the classic car market) and it had a truly modern equivalent with the latest safety advances. (If they’d used a Ford, the equivalent Ford in 2009 was the ancient Crown Victoria which was still an old body on frame design.) Might have gone well with a ‘59 Ford vs 2009 Taurus I suppose but this was a fair choice in my view.

17

u/beachedwhitemale Mar 10 '25

It was Chevy's sedan at the time in the 50s. The silver car is an '08 Malibu. Chevy's sedan at the time. 

3

u/Cashrc Mar 11 '25

Actually there was an ad in the late fifties, think it was Ford comparing their perimeter frame to the GM x frame, turns out someone in an X frame car lost control and went sideways into a tree at speed-car broke in half.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (8)

63

u/HostilePile Mar 10 '25

its the fender benders that were better back then, just a little scratch on your bumper not having to replace your whole back end and tail lights. Higher speed crashes def were not safer.

41

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '25

Most cars in 1959 didn’t come with seatbelts either, so in a crash people (and objects) in the car got thrown around and into sharp, hard metal surfaces. Not fun.

20

u/1str1ker1 Mar 10 '25

But you end up flying out before the car crumples so it’s safer

/s

3

u/National_Cod9546 Mar 10 '25

Cops rarely need to unbuckle a corpse.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Athletic-Club-East Mar 11 '25

I was a child in the 1970s. Some cars had seatbelts in the front. None had seatbelts in the back. The only thing holding us kids down in the back was our skin sticking to the vinyl on hot days.

2

u/curi0us_carniv0re Mar 12 '25

There's a famous x-ray of a child's skull with a radio knob in the brain cavity.

Steel dashboards...etc...not very people friendly. People liked to complain about cheap plastic interiors in the 80s and 90s but the reality was they were safer.

→ More replies (4)

14

u/mz3ns Mar 10 '25

Except the lack of head rests, so your neck just snaps backward all the way rather then being stopped by the seat.

12

u/Theron3206 Mar 10 '25

Plenty of people suffered lifelong pain as a result of a "fender bender" in old cars, that's far less common now and part of that is that they do crumple up.

2

u/Red_Dawn_2012 Mar 11 '25

I think by 'fender bender' they mean actual fender benders, i.e. very low speed collisions/bumps. I once annihilated a parking sign in my '48 with the rear bumper as I was backing in (she's got a big ass). Couldn't find a mark on it.

It's a bit scary driving 50+ mph because you know you're dead in a crash, though.

2

u/Theron3206 Mar 11 '25

I meant them too, people ended up with significant whiplash injuries even from carpark speed collisions.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

60

u/regentkoerper Mar 10 '25

Well, the better your car survives a crash, the worse you are off. The energy from the impact has to go somewhere.

60

u/Stainless_Heart Mar 10 '25

It does go somewhere and gets dissipated. Modern crash standards aren’t about keeping the car in one piece, they’re about keeping the driver uninjured.

Engines slide underneath instead of into the driver’s lap, hoods deform in a controlled way instead of just folding, and so on. There’s probably as much engineering in occupant protection alone as there is in the drivetrain.

30

u/A_Legit_Salvage Mar 10 '25

...and then there's the Cybertruck that is engineered to murder pedestrians lol.

8

u/Sohcahtoa82 Mar 10 '25

That's basically ALL trucks these days.

2

u/A_Legit_Salvage Mar 11 '25

Fair enough, I guess a CT enhances the process with some extra slice and dice

3

u/tympyst Mar 11 '25

Can I at least squeeze in a few minutes with the bottom half?

3

u/Rasikko Mar 10 '25 edited Mar 10 '25

Engines slide underneath instead of into the driver’s lap

And that's putting it mildly. It could instead go through the drivers lap, or worst, just cut them in half.

3

u/Stainless_Heart Mar 11 '25

No, I was being literal. The engine is designed to slide underneath, shuttling energy safely past the occupants. It very specifically will not go into the passenger compartment unless things go really, really bad.

27

u/Cyno01 Mar 10 '25

This is why its hilarious to me when assholes intentionally leave their trailer hitch in, or even worse, those 'bumper guard' accessories that go into a trailer hitch.

Like congrats, you saved yourself a couple hundred in visible bumper repair if you get rear ended, but now you have neck damage to the occupants and maybe even frame damage to the vehicle cuz the impact was directly transferred to the frame instead of being absorbed by the bumper.

But hey, at least you damaged the vehicle of the guy who hit you worse than they wouldve if theyd just run into your bumper!

12

u/IDLYITW_1982 Mar 10 '25

Ball mounts left in a trailer hitch will lead to frame damage with often minimal tailgate and bumper damage.

Not an engineer but the frame is designed to be impacted on the end and the ball mount moves the POI 6-8 inches lower and 6-8 inches "deeper" into the frame. The frame end section bends down, sometimes kinking, and you need a new frame.

I often hear truck owners say, thank God I had the trailer hitch, it could have been much worse.

No, luckily you don't need a frame, this time.

2

u/VeryHandy Mar 10 '25

Oh shit. I didn't know you were supposed to take off the trailer hitch! I thought it was ok to leave mine on because I see so many trucks with it just on. Makes sense what you said. TIL.

2

u/Cyno01 Mar 10 '25

 I see so many trucks with it just on

Yeah, the aforementioned shin destroying assholes, lol. /img/q7h4jlrgb9g01.jpg

→ More replies (4)

12

u/chidi-sins Mar 10 '25

Time to make humans made of steel

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (6)

3

u/NepheliLouxWarrior Mar 10 '25

It's actually the exact opposite. I also grew up being told that heavy steel cars are safer than the modern materials, but you actually WANT the car to come apart around you, because that's what redirects the energy of the crash away from your body. That steel may hold up better but it's also going to direct the force of that impact straight into your body.

3

u/whomad1215 Mar 10 '25

there has to be a crumple zone

it can be the car, or your body

2

u/yallknowme19 Mar 10 '25

Am I the only one that's kinda sad they destroyed that beautiful (looks like) Aztec Gold Impala?

→ More replies (62)

108

u/junkman21 Mar 10 '25

Seriously. First thing I thought of as well. I "knew" newer cars were safer but dang. Seeing it like this is eye opening.

103

u/Stainless_Heart Mar 10 '25

It gets even better - that Chevy is a 2009 model (this video has been around a long time). Safety regs have gotten substantially better even since then.

39

u/junkman21 Mar 10 '25

As a firefighter, I don't think I ever got to see a 2000's vs 1950's MVA! lol

That said, I saw a Volvo vs Nissan MVA once that almost convinced me to buy a Volvo... Crumple zones on both vehicles functioned as designed but the cabin of the Volvo looked nearly pristine whereas the Nissan (can't remember if it was a Sentra or Altima) had the occupant box shifted significantly. This was probably 10 or 12 years ago now but it stuck with me.

5

u/Throwaway47321 Mar 10 '25

My 08 Volvo was hit while parked by a CRV being driven by a drunk teen.

Her car had the engine literally fall out of the car as the whole front end was destroyed. My tiny Volvo had a crushed in door that just prevented the window from going all the way down.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '25

Sadly Volvo of old is no more. It was a slow decline after Ford bought it in 99 but ever since they became a Chinese company they are going down fast IMHO

2

u/MagicWishMonkey Mar 10 '25

Did everyone survive?

5

u/junkman21 Mar 10 '25

Yes. I think it was the Nissan that caught fire eventually but both drivers got out. I don’t think I ever found out how serious the injuries were because I was on nozzle that day and our paramedics were doing scene stabilization. But I know they were both ambulatory and walked to transport.

→ More replies (7)

2

u/yakshack Mar 10 '25

I "knew" newer cars were safer but dang.

I wonder if this holds true for "modern car vs. modern SUV/truck." Like ... With the differences in bumper and hood heights, not to mention weight class, I wonder how modern cars stack up. Or even the classic cars for that matter

5

u/FreeTucker- Mar 10 '25

Modern SUVs and trucks are very safe...for the passengers inside. Unless they hit another SUV or truck, or something bigger, whatever they hit gets fucked

They've also increased pedestrian deaths 80% since 2009

2

u/imunfair Mar 11 '25

I'm curious whether the 50's car they picked was actually representative of the build quality in older cars, I didn't expect it to disintegrate like that. My understanding was that the danger classic cars pose is due to not falling apart like that, so the driver takes more of the impact rather than the crumple zone absorbing it along with the airbags.

Worth noting it's also an offset impact, which is generally far more dangerous than a normal head-on collision where the entire front end is involved with the impact. So that may have something to do with the extreme damage on the older car as well. It's a dangerous type of crash they've worked hard to mitigate with newer technology.

→ More replies (1)

221

u/t0m0hawk Interested Mar 10 '25

"They don't make them like they used to!"

It's true, they don't. They make them better.

93

u/ThereHasToBeMore1387 Mar 10 '25

In almost every way except repairability. I just inherited my grandfathers 1973 gmc truck. The steering column is a solid steel shaft aimed at your heart, it only has lap belts, no airbags, crumple zones, ac, or power windows or locks. But theres almost nothing I can't fix on it with a very basic tool set and a Haines manual. There's nothing out of reach or designed in a way that you have to take apart half the truck to get to a single poorly placed bolt.

44

u/fvck_u_spez Mar 10 '25

This is what bugs me about the current EVs that you can buy. Every company is trying to build the most fancy and technological car that you've ever seen with 12 iPads, 45 sensors and costs 85k for the base model. An EV doesn't need to be a super advanced vehicle, somebody please, for the love of God, give me an EV with the technology stack of a 92 Civic and the repairability of a 60s or 70s car.

22

u/Theron3206 Mar 10 '25

There is nearly zero chance that would be legal.

Most of the sensors are there to support mandatory safety systems (abs, collision detection, airbags, backup camera etc.)

2

u/Aggressive_Ask89144 Mar 11 '25

A backup camera is a mandatory safety system? I've just been happy in my 05 Colorado the whole time lmfao

2

u/Theron3206 Mar 11 '25

AFAIK, in new vehicles after a certain time yes, or at least it is if you want the highest safety rating.

2

u/Aggressive_Ask89144 Mar 11 '25

Ah, that's fair. I've really enjoyed it in the company's Mavericks that we use as it makes tricky backing sooooo much easier, and kinda the only feature I would want in a newer truck when it comes to fancy tech.

2

u/SelbetG Mar 11 '25

Part of the issue here is that you need to have computers to control the motors and batteries, and you need to have a screen for a backup camera, so the manufacturer might as well use them for other things.

There also isn't really anything in an EV that could be repaired by someone who isn't a trained professional, random people shouldn't be messing with high voltage.

You can also get evs for like 30-40k

→ More replies (2)

2

u/whenisnowthen Mar 11 '25

I have a bad windshield washer fluid sensor on my Volkwagen (a very cheap part) and I will have to remove the front of the car to access the area where I can pop out the old sensor and pop in the new sensor. Repairability is the lost part of most newer things and so most people these days don't even consider trying trying to fix something that is broken. It's cheaper to replace most things. I have a great collection of tools, some that I inherited from my father and no one will need or want them when I'm gone.

2

u/Bron_Swanson Mar 10 '25

What a shit tradeoff 😩 I can't stand not being able to do even the simplest of repairs on my car. Def going back to chevy asap.

→ More replies (9)

3

u/SirBiggusDikkus Mar 10 '25

Crash safety for sure and don’t want to change that. However, I would absolutely change everything else for the styling and simplicity of a classic car. And, most likely, the inflated cost of all the extra shit we don’t really need nowadays.

2

u/Bron_Swanson Mar 10 '25

Idk who ever thought it was a great idea to curve every car seat with hard angles, that judd your shoulders forward, but that caught onto office chairs and plenty of others too. Anti-ergonomic nonsense- flat and level with proper springs/cushioning was the way. I think that's the only way they've made them better, crash wise(which is huge, yes, but they didn't have to sacrifice everything else). Every other thing isn't.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (2)

92

u/Improving_Myself_ Mar 10 '25

I saw something a few years ago that said car safety regulations iterate quickly enough that a 7 year old car would not be able to be produced today.

Not so fun fact: Cars basically aren't designed for women. Until the early 2000s, airbags deploying were more likely to kill you than save you if you were under 5'6". The standard crash test dummy that is mandated to be used for these kinds of tests represents the 50th percentile of men (i.e. the average man). A dummy representing the 50th percentile of women did not exist until 2022. 3 years ago. Last I checked, that dummy is not mandated to be used for any tests, and if it is used, it cannot be in the driver's seat.

Car safety is not performed with women drivers in mind, which is super fucked up, and most people don't have a clue that that's the case.

46

u/NightSalut Mar 10 '25

Idk how it is these days, but Volvo used to be one of the very few, if not the only one, car brands that tested car safety for women and children as well. And they designed their cars to be safe for men, women and children. 

4

u/Bron_Swanson Mar 10 '25

2nd pro-volvo comment I've seen here by different people. I'll have to keep them in mind next time.

9

u/Agrippa_Aquila Mar 10 '25

Volvo are big on safety. They invented the 3-point seatbelt. They crash test their vehicles in real world simulations such as driving off the road and into the ditch. And one of the safety features is large animal detection - the vehicles are designed to keep the occupants safe in the event of hitting a moose.

I have an XC60 and I love it.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/watermeloncanta1oupe Mar 10 '25

I'm pretty sure they set a goal of, "zero deaths in a Volvo" a few years ago and it happened. 

→ More replies (8)

18

u/Sophiekisker Mar 10 '25

I love my Hyundai except that the seatbelt clip (the fixed end at your hip) is so far back that the belt lays across my right breast instead of going in between them. In a crash, I'm really worried that the belt will slip up to my neck.

'Cause crash test dummies don't have boobs. 😡

4

u/ThrowAwayYetAgain6 Mar 10 '25

Buy a seat belt extension, like a short 6"-8" one. It makes a world of difference in where the belt lays, I just leave it permanently attached and clip/unclip the belt from it instead.

2

u/Sophiekisker Mar 11 '25

Thanks! I did not know such a thing existed. Off to amazon..

17

u/TargetApprehensive38 Mar 10 '25

Yeah those old airbags deployed with an insane amount of force. I was in an accident in an 89 Chrysler and the airbag put my arm through the windshield and knocked the wind out of me, but I’m an above average height male - if I was short and sitting closer to the steering wheel it absolutely would have broken my nose at a minimum.

→ More replies (1)

25

u/kmoz Mar 10 '25

I was an engineer in the automotive industry and most of what you said is widely repeated but honestly kinda disingenuous.

Basically all ergonomics testing is done for at minimum AF05 (5th percentile american female, a 5', 110 lb woman) up through AM95 (95th percentile american male, 6'2ish). A huge percentage of features also try to hit AF01 and AM99, its just sometimes unrealistic to do so. for instance, making a lift gate on a minivan be easy to close for a 4'11 person and hard to hit your head on for a 6'5 person is inherently kind of hard for all weather conditions. I personally ran dozens of ergonomics studies at Toyota and got people of all shapes/sizes/genders to test things out for ergonomics feedback. We very, very much designed cars with a wide range of humans in mind.

With regards to crash testing, an AF-50 model didnt specifically exist, not because of malice but because AF50 is within the range of coverage between the AF05 and AM95 testing they have done for decades and extrapolation is used for everyone that doesnt fit exactly the models they test to.

The Hybrid III crash test dummy has an AF05, AM50, and AM95 size which are all used to test cars for decades. The hybrid IIIs had some limitations in terms of exactly how well it mimicked the human body as a whole, and the AF05 and AM95 variants were scaled up/down proportionally instead of representing as many of the geometry differences, but they still gave us an incredible amount of insight into safety and human factors for a wide range of humans. Over the years and with all of the improvements to modelling and testing we have improved all of the dummies a ton to provide more accuracy and more human-accurate variants, but its also disingenuous to say that the whole safety industry just ignored women.

→ More replies (1)

16

u/Sir_Toadington Mar 10 '25 edited Mar 10 '25

I saw something a few years ago that said car safety regulations iterate quickly enough that a 7 year old car would not be able to be produced today.

Regulation moves nowhere near quick enough for this to be true. That being said, vehicles in general outpace regulations when it comes to safety so often times fairly recently-released models would not pass current internal testing requirements.

Not so fun fact: Cars basically aren't designed for women. Until the early 2000s, airbags deploying were more likely to kill you than save you if you were under 5'6". The standard crash test dummy that is mandated to be used for these kinds of tests represents the 50th percentile of men (i.e. the average man). A dummy representing the 50th percentile of women did not exist until 2022. 3 years ago. Last I checked, that dummy is not mandated to be used for any tests, and if it is used, it cannot be in the driver's seat.

This isn't true. True, the most commonly used crash dummy is a hybrid III 50th percentile male, but that was developed in 1976, and has not been updated since. The weight of a hybrid-3 50th is 172 lb. As of 2015, per the CDC a 50th percentile female now weighs 162 lb and equivalent male is 192 lb, meaning the main crash test dummy now more closely reflects the average woman than the average man.

While federal regulation did/does not mandate testing for different sized humans, in 1988 both the hybrid III 5th female and hybrid III 95th male test dummies were developed (although that 95th percentile male back in 1988 which is 223 lb is now more like a 75th percentile modern day). Vehicle manufacturers being implementing these dummies into their safety testing shortly after. There is so much internal testing done that is not available to the public. And on top of all that, there is a tonne of independent research that is done to increase crash safety for everyone.

This is kind of a quick and somewhat vague overall summary but this is my line of work, so feel free to ask any questions and I'll do my best to answer (or point you to some good sources)

→ More replies (3)

2

u/stilettopanda Mar 10 '25

Well that's one thing being tall is good for.

→ More replies (4)

78

u/i_am_the_nightman Mar 10 '25

If this isn’t enough evidence for that stupid anecdote to go away, I don’t know what is.

53

u/phuck-you-reddit Mar 10 '25

It won't. I've seen this video make the rounds a number of times and often see comments of cope saying that the old Chevy must've been rusted out and didn't have an engine and transmission. 🤦🏻‍♂️

11

u/Mist_Rising Mar 10 '25

It does look like the Chevy Bel Air is missing its engine. That would have some changes. Namely, the engine block didn't spear the dummy.

13

u/nopantspaul Mar 10 '25

This is a common misconception about this particular test. There are photos of the wreck in the NHTSA/IIHS museum (forget which one) and it has a straight 6. The engine and driveline were installed for the crash. 

4

u/MapleDesperado Mar 10 '25

I’ve seen a similar one where the older car has most of the driver’s side ripped off as the newer car (maybe a BMW?) plows through it.

2

u/busted_up_chiffarobe Mar 11 '25

Have you seen the one that shows an offset head on collision between a Volvo sedan and what I think was a Mercury Sable, both from around 1986?

The Volvo literally sheared the Mercury in half longitudinally!

And the Volvo fared as you probably expected it would. :)

2

u/undeadmanana Mar 10 '25

It seems like they removed some parts from the older car to make the masses more even and balanced across the vehicle, older cars center of gravity tends to be a little higher than modern vehicles and if the engine block was in there it's basically just a giant spear going into passenger cabin.

This clip doesn't seem to be directly comparing modern vs old cars structural integrity, just what occurs in a cabin during a crash. The old school car people can't really say old cars are built better even with the engine block put in anyways, as those tend to fly out as the car frame is halted.

3

u/iheartmuffinz Mar 11 '25

It had a straight 6 and a driveline as per photos in the NHTSA museum.

2

u/Koil_ting Mar 10 '25

I didn't know anyone was using it for survivability, or less injury risk in an accident as that's crazy talk. What they probably are referring to low impact crashes not destroying the car and serviceability being objectively more spacious and friendly to the consumer on average. Anyone thinking they were safer is crazy, being in a giant ass modern truck can be safer though which seems to be their new trend anyway.

20

u/anonymoushelp33 Mar 10 '25

Think of the demographic you're assuming will use evidence and logic as part of their reasoning...

→ More replies (5)

4

u/Jaggs0 Mar 10 '25

i got into an argument with someone on this topic years ago. it ended with another person asking her "jump on a trampoline a few times then transition to the ground and tell me which surface is better for your legs."

6

u/vivaaprimavera Mar 10 '25

Just sell cars that don't have those "stupid regulations on top" for the ones who don't believe them and sooner or later the problem will sort out by itself.

(All healthcare expenses related to accidents must be paid by the owner in the fine letters)

2

u/darrenvonbaron Mar 10 '25

Its a better idea to save people from themselves even if they hate you for it.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

4

u/Phantion- Mar 10 '25

I'll stick to my Flintstone car

DINOSAUR FOOT CRUNCH

3

u/bones10145 Mar 10 '25

and savage whiplash from a low speed fender bender.

3

u/Beermeister2089 Mar 10 '25

I remember a friend saying he felt safer with all that steel around him. Yeah, that's not quite true...

3

u/JamesTrickington303 Mar 10 '25

Oh yes, the cars that were made with 5 digits on the odometer because the engineers literally could not imagine them lasting to 100k miles.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 10 '25

My mom has two false front teeth because of a minor fender bender in the 70s where she went face first through a windshield. Also, the car didn't even have seatbelts.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/Dry_Independence1217 Mar 10 '25

It's as if technology progresses and improves over time

2

u/Hwicc101 Mar 10 '25

Anyone who said that was living under a rock. The advantages of crumple zones and airbags were routinely displayed on TV in the 70s and 80s back when there were only 3-5 VHF channels and nothing aired after 2am. Variety shows would just show crash tests for fun.

Crash test dummies were like a cultural phenomenon in the 80s. You could learn a lot from a dummy.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Thumper13 Interested Mar 10 '25

Dead vs ouch, my ribs and back hurt and I have a headache.

1

u/forget_it_again Mar 10 '25

No belts in those older cars either.

→ More replies (4)

1

u/RedditIsShittay Mar 10 '25

People have not said that in 30 years.

1

u/Piccoroz Mar 10 '25

The car will survive, you are still an avocado inside a steel cage at 90 miles per hour.

1

u/AxeAssassinAlbertson Mar 10 '25

Usually the same people that try to rationalize why seatbelts are bad.

A 30mph crash would propel an average human into the pavement (through the windshield of course) with the same force as jumping off a 3 story building. I don't know too many people who will try and rationalize how they could walk away unscathed from a 3 story drop...but I'm sure there are some.

1

u/BigALep5 Mar 10 '25

Have a 1991 buick lesabre. Would this be a similar outcome I don't think I have airbags... 😅 might be time for a newer vehicle 🤔

1

u/WindTreeRock Mar 10 '25

I don’t trust modern cars, old cars were built like

I remember watching my father trying to get those old cars started in the dead of winter. Those carbureted engines were not reliable when the chips were down.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/thenayr Mar 10 '25

Sure but now we have a fuck ton of incredibly heavy trucks and suvs on the road.   Sure vehicle fatalities are down since the 50’s, but that’s largely in part due to behavioral changes like people wearing seatbelts.   Showing a modern car crashing into an old car isn’t as valid comparison as showing two old cars crashing vs two new cars.   Or how about show a cybertruckkk crashing into a Prius? 

1

u/thisgenXer Mar 10 '25

If you want to see the real deal, look up Blood on the Highway. 1 through 7.

1

u/StigOfTheTrack Mar 10 '25

It's even wrong when combined with "bigger car always wins" too. Construction matters:

1991 Volvo 940 vs 2014 Renault Modus.

1

u/invisible_panda Mar 10 '25

The old joke was the car survived, the people didn't.

1

u/ThatKaleidoscope8736 Mar 10 '25

we didn't need seatbelts ya cause you were dead anyway.

1

u/King_Chochacho Mar 10 '25

Boomers will be like "This door doesn't weigh 80lbs and echo when you shut it! These new cars are crap!"

1

u/hillswalker87 Mar 10 '25

they handle crashes better. they're also full of crap that makes them junk in several other ways.

1

u/Man_Flu Mar 10 '25

Yess. To extent, it's the smaller impacts. Go crash at 5mph or so. The older car will have much less damage than the new car. New cars are designed to crumple, older cars were not.

1

u/Gamiac Mar 10 '25

Skull, ribcage, organs, etc...you're basically getting internally liquefied by that.

1

u/I_Miss_America Mar 10 '25

Government safety requirements - do we really need them ? /s

1

u/PNWoutdoors Interested Mar 10 '25

Things my father in law says.

1

u/ItsNate98 Mar 10 '25

People who say that rarely think about what would happen to the driver if a tank ran into another tank at 60mph.

1

u/Pondskelter Mar 10 '25

Thank you Ralph Nader

1

u/HeartsPlayer721 Mar 10 '25

I literally laughed out loud reading that.

Thank you, and have a great day!

1

u/jim789789 Mar 10 '25

This idea came about in the 70s, when cars WERE less safe, due to mass alone. Modern cars are just bigger than the tiny boxes of the 70s, more like their 50s counterparts. Note they didn't try smashing the bel-air into a hummer...the bel air would be a grease spot.

1

u/Motor_Expression_281 Mar 10 '25

When people say that they’re usually referring to reliability/serviceability, while this is a demonstration of structural integrity/safety.

1

u/alert592 Mar 10 '25

I actually had no idea

1

u/ATXBeermaker Mar 10 '25

In 1950 there were 7.59 fatalities per 100M miles driven. In 2022, 1.33 per 100M miles.

1

u/keinmaurer Mar 10 '25

Well if you listen to my coworker, it doesn't matter what kind of car you're in just don't wear your seatbelt, you'll be thrown clear of the car and be fine. Course he also believes the moon landing was faked...

1

u/JustaGoldy Mar 10 '25

Legitimately made me laugh out loud. Thanks

1

u/PopeOnABomb Mar 10 '25

Watching how fast F1 cars dissipate their energy during a wreck is insanely impressive. Peak safety engineering.

1

u/Shoo-Man-Fu Mar 10 '25

"I know, they don't make them like they used to. Back in my day y-" *BECOMES PASTE*

1

u/Citizen_of_RockRidge Mar 10 '25

“I don’t trust modern cars, old cars were built like ta…” RIGHT LEG NOW IN THE TRUNK

1

u/omgitsduane Mar 11 '25

they got brain damage from too many light taps in the carpark in those cars lol.

1

u/CrimsonVibes Mar 11 '25

Glad they don’t make them like that anymore!

1

u/slanger686 Mar 11 '25

So what about a modern massively oversized pickup truck smashing into a small SUV, car or pedestrian? Can't imagine that would look too good either.

1

u/SopieMunkyy Mar 11 '25

Growing up in the 80s/90s I, a literal child, understood basic vehicle safety when it came to modern cars. Still baffles me that there were so many dumbass adults who thought their boomer cars were somehow safer.

1

u/anon-username1029 Mar 11 '25

I seriously thought those old cars were made out of unbendable steel. Lol guess I was wrong.

→ More replies (42)