In the 70s the cars won but not the people. Modern vehicles let the people survive instead of themselves.
It wouldn’t win out. They typically didn’t have any crumple zones to dissipate the forces of the impact so the full forces in the accident got transferred to the passenger cell and therefore the passengers. Also no seatbelt pre-tensioners to stop you flying forward before the seatbelt locks would engage and no airbags to protect you. Steering columns were also not collapsible so the driver’s chest being impacted by the steering wheel was a common thing in a head on.
I know it’s a much older car for the example but same idea:
My late grandfather liked to restore Model T and Model A cars. One day he got T-Boned in an intersection by my house at 70 km/hr driving a Model A and Grandma was with him.
The 2005 era van that hit him was a wreck with the front smashed in. The driver was uninjured.
The Model A had a slightly bent fender front-right side and a minor paint scuff. My Grandparents went into the back of an Ambulance.
They survived but had raccoon eyes and were more bruises than healthy flesh for awhile.
How did he get T-boned by your house???
Sorry, I’m a dad, I can’t stop it.
The car might sustain less damage, however, the occupant will receive more damage. People buy newer, safer cars, presumably because they like being alive and would prefer to keep doing that.
Modern cars are designed to break before their drivers do, because you can’t replace you, but you can buy a new car.
The car from the 70’s survives accidents better because more of it is rigid, but this makes it more dangerous as more of the force of the accident is transferred to the driver.
Modern crumple zones are placed intentionally so that while the car will crumple, the driver will not.
If I have to pick only one, I’m going to go with modern crumple zones
But man, I do wish we had some kind of magical smart metal that could be as rigid as an old car for low speed collisions, but still crumple for more serious impacts.
Because when you drive an old shitbox like I do, pretty much any damage is enough to total it, and having to get a new car really sucks when the accident was minor enough that no one was going to get hurt anyway.
Reverse Newtonian metal sheet. I think that’s doable in my lifetime.
Yes, the 70’s car would “win out”. Its driver, on the other hand would fare much worse than you.
Ideally, people wouldn’t treat possibly fatal transit collisions as a sports game. And also ideally, most people would see the uselessness of looking at which car is less damaged. Realistically, I know neither of those are universal, but I do hope they are common.
Yup. Any impacted component that survives means that the force was transferred to the driver instead.
Modern cars look worse after a collision for a reason: If it collapses/crumples, it means that it absorbed some of the forces applied to it rather than transferring it on.
The amount of energy absorbed by the cars is the same for both drivers. (What makes that car existence a risk to both parties.)
The problem of the old car is that it transmits the extra force to the people inside in some of the worst possible ways.
Have I got a video for you!
Edit: with narration https://youtu.be/fPF4fBGNK0U
I love how much this one video has done to explain new car safety.
It’s honestly worth keeping the principle behind crumple zones in mind with everything:
If energy can go somewhere else, then less of it will be transferred to what matters.
For cars, the energy going into bending and breaking the materials of the crumple zone then doesn’t get transferred to the interior compartment.
For Xbox controllers, they’re designed so that when they drop, the batteries shoot out and go flying, which means less energy goes into the controller shell and internals.
And with a lot of laptops these days, you’re seeing the actual toughest, most survivable ones not be built out of heavy rigid metal and glass like Apple does, but out of light flexible aluminum composites. A) they weigh less so there’s less potential energy involved in a fall, and B) some of the energy gets transferred into bending the shell which will then snap back to form.
Goddamn it’s not even close. '59 car dummy got skewered. '09 car dummy landed on a soft fluffy mattress in comparison.
Featured comment on the first video pretty directly answers the question from @OP @Patnou@lemmy.world :
As a Firefighter I was called to an accident which turned out to be a head on collision between 60’s model Chrysler and a 2000 model Subaru. The Chrysler looked to have held up pretty good but the driver was taken to hospital with life threatening injuries. The Subaru was totalled back to the windscreen yet the mother and daughter in the car walked away without a scratch.
Another thing to point out is the newer car is “only” a 2009 model. We’ve had another 17 years since then to make them even safer still.
It’d be interesting to see how much cars have improved since then.It’s interesting considering how the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety really highlights what is more important for them to reduce in a collision. Modern cars might sustain much more damage and be more likely to get written off as a total loss, but that will probably cost them $30-40k at the high end in most wrecks. But if a person gets seriously injured the insurance company could very quickly be on the hook for the full $100-300k in medical bills most people get coverage for.
There are several reasons. The largest is not what you likely imagine. The biggest change in internal combustion cars of today versus something from the mid 1990's or older is actually the engine, and more specifically, the metal casting techniques.
Older stuff used basic green sand castings. These molds tend to align rather poorly. The outer mold is just compacted oil sand. If the part cannot be cast with green sand using a cope and drag, they used inner cores that are made of chemically hardened sand. All of this is manually aligned and has poor tolerances. One of the causes of poor tolerances is the tendency for the mold and core to shift. The molten metal is a liquid and the sand parts float on this liquid, like a whole lot of floatiness.
Newer techniques use better chemically hardened core like materials, and instead of using green sand with a cope and drag, the entire mold is made of hardened sand that locks with multiple pieces like a puzzle that cannot come apart. This technological shift is the main reason why cars went from lasting 60k to 120k miles to 250k to 500k miles.
Also investment casting is now used on many smaller parts. Basically a wax version of the part is made. This is coated in several layers of a ceramic slurry. Then it is fired in a kiln, burning out the wax and leaving a ceramic negative of the part. The form is placed in sand and then cast. The ceramic is far far more accurate, but is a labor intensive and more involved process.
From my experience in auto body work, owning my own shop, the way cars look is primary down to metal forming machinery and the quality of steel. The thinness of the metal sheet and its strength dictate much, but it is also a compromise in how easily the panel can be assembled on a line. Limits in logistics complexity management are also a critical factor. One of the biggest shifts here in the last twenty years is the use of adhesives and robotics. Adhesives have replaced fasteners and welding in many places on modern vehicles. It is one of the reasons they are so resilient in crashes. This is nothing like the adhesives you find in the US consumer market. These are on the level of fucking dangerous if you stick your fingers together or get them on a hand. They are not taking a thin layer of skin off or letting go like anything you are likely to have used before. These are only available in industry or at an auto paint jobber. The ability to form complex bends and metal drawing operations without cracking the steel sheet are key. Like as a body guy, I am looking at how the panel was initially formed, and then the exact series of forces that went into crumpling and damaging it. My job was to create as close to the same amount of force as possible but in order, and in reverse. Over time, the complexity of forces used to initially form every panel has increased. So when I look at cars, I see this progression of industrial technology and materials.
In other words, six fender washers and three frame bolts cannot compete with fifteen glued panels and complex geometry under the thin surface you see outside. It also makes new cars unrepairable in most circumstances. They are, but not in a traditional sense that passes classical insurance standards. It requires… creativity… like an, artist. (Do not look behind the curtains.)
The actual argument for old cars is ownership.
My 2006 Honda Accord coupe weighs almost a thousand pounds more than a 1965 Ford Mustang.
In fact, a 1985 Ford LTD Crown Victoria only weighs about 400 pounds more than my Honda.
People WILDLY underestimate how heavy modern cars are, and how much better they are for safety of the occupants.
The crown Vic stat is sure interesting. All that boatiness for only 400 more lbs than an accord is a pretty good deal. Brb, going to buy a 40 year old big body
And half the horsepower and half the fuel mileage. 🤣
The only reason I know either of those two stats is that my dad’s first car was the aforementioned Mustang, and my family had an 85 LTD CV bought new in 85.
It was a good car as far as it goes, and comfy as all get out, but it was definitely thirsty as fuck.
Takes a lot of dead dinosaurs to ride in supreme comfort. I was a valet (parker not rich guy dresser) for a few years and the land yachts were the most comfortable to drive and ride in by far. I would see cars that looked more comfortable but they usually had separate drivers.
The 70’s car might survive but you won’t.
I saw a post where a Cybertruck got T-boned by like a Nissan or something. The Tesla didn’t look damaged badly at all and the other car was modern art. Tesla people were bragging about it until someone pointed out that the Nissan driver walked away while the driver of the Tesla broke both legs.
I know this is anecdote, but the point is that vehicle damage doesn’t prove people injuries.
Nope. Its much safer to crash in a today car. 70’s would break as well and break you more. Both would be totaled anyway in such a case.
Today’s cars are designed to crumple and protect you, older cars transmit more damage to your body.
In the 70s car, the steering column would impale your chest.
A LOT of people died in car accidents, with the cause of their deaths investigated, to make cars safer.Also, today’s cars are primarily metal, too (but cleverly designed to crumple and absorb the shock from the impact instead of transferring it to the squishy human inside).
Back in the day, everyone knew someone who’d been killed in a car accident. Everyone.
>ABS made a huge difference.
Then airbags.
Crumple zones are your friend
