GM's response to the 4 star crash test???

[fdjizm]

Originally Posted by Fiverz

There's a problem with this logic though. It only applies to that one particular circumstance of transferring that amount of force in that exact direction into that exact same object. But it also means that you could A) apply a different amount of force B) in a different direction with C) a different object and you would get different results. This applies to all vehicles ... the test is not simply one of "force" it's one of "force applied via a constant speed at a single direction/point with a wall made of consistent material."

I still take the results in to account when purchasing a car ... but to say definitively you would survive a crash more likely in car A than car B is simply flawed and impossible to determine.

That being said, to the OP ... I am unaware of any announcement and I doubt there will be one unless they DO make some refinements in a future MY or run. I don't expect them to however, as others have stated ... the majority of people purchasing a sports car/muscle car do so knowing the risks.

I agree which is why i stated "lets say the crashes were exact" so i broke it down to simply who would be in better shape after the exact same crash. but getting rid of crash safety test i dont think is a cool option. they are not completely useless. the same could be said with measuring horsepower, since every car has different numbers but we definitely want that test to stay.

[CamaroSkooter]

I'm an engineer-in-training. I passed the FE exam and I've got a couple years until I take the PE exam and become a state certified professional engineer. So, no, I don't have any idea what you mean by "transfer of force." [/sarcasm]

You're not listening to what I'm saying. I don't think I can explain it any other way, and I seriously doubt you'll ever agree with what I'm saying, so there's no point in arguing over it.

My statement is, people put way too much safety judgement on a car's performance in "crash-test results" and not enough on a driver's ability to actually drive a car. I believe crash-test results play an integral role in fully understanding what your car is and is not capable of.

The majority of collisions on the roads are easily avoidable and preventable with more vehicle awareness. But no one wants to say that they don't know how to actually drive a car, instead they'd rather blame the severity of their collision on their car's safety rating.

[gred04]

Originally Posted by Fiverz

There's a problem with this logic though. It only applies to that one particular circumstance of transferring that amount of force in that exact direction into that exact same object. But it also means that you could A) apply a different amount of force B) in a different direction with C) a different object and you would get different results. This applies to all vehicles ... the test is not simply one of "force" it's one of "force applied via a constant speed at a single direction/point with a wall made of consistent material."

I don't think there is anything wrong with the logic. It is just a simplified illustration to show what you can take away from a consistent crash rating system.

Post 77 summed it up perfectly.

If you can't understand it at its simplest then its very likely the rating system will be meaningless to you.

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by Zedder

.. but I won't put my kids in a car that isn't 5 stars all around - that's just my choice.

Great idea! Let's elaborate on that.

To that sticky-faced kid: "Sorry kid, this car isn't safe enough to let a minor ride in. Now go spill your food and drink all over something else."

To my boss: "I'm sorry, but I can't let you ride in this vehicle. If an accident occurred, you'd probably be decapitated."

To the good looking girl: "Sure, let's take it for a spin. But I have to warn you, this car is dangerous. Very dangerous."

[gred04]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

I'm an engineer-in-training. I passed the FE exam and I've got a couple years until I take the PE exam and become a state certified professional engineer. So, no, I don't have any idea what you mean by "transfer of force." [/sarcasm]

My statement is, people put way too much safety judgement on a car's performance in "crash-test results" and not enough on a driver's ability to actually drive a car. I believe crash-test results play an integral role in fully understanding what your car is and is not capable of.

Skooter no need to keep reminding everyone that your a engineer. This board is most likely full of engineers. We all get it.

Your argument that there is too much emphasis on car's ability to protect you in a crash and not enough on safe driving is really kinda crazy.

The assumption for every type of vehicle protection system is that operator will be using the vehicle safely. The protection system is for instances where the operator is not in control ( for whatever reason ).

[CamaroSkooter]

Sorry, I took his statement, "have you ever read up on the differences in "transfer of force" in a car crash?" to mean he either missed that, or that he was trying to insult my intelligence. :/

But gred, there isn't enough emphasis on safe driving these days. Too many people rely on their car to protect them. I just don't understand that kind of philosophy. Sure, I want a "safe" car as much as the next guy, but a car is only as safe as it's pilot.

"The assumption for every type of vehicle protection system is that operator will be using the vehicle safely."

Really? So the new feature on Volvo's where the car can stop itself is making that assumption?

[ElAntonius]

Hand-wringing aside, yes, it would be better _FOR GM_ to get the 5-star...I didn't buy the car for that, but hell, I'd prefer it if they did. Not having 5 star is a bad marketing point, just like MPG or HP or any other number that can give an incomplete idea of the realities of owning the car in question.

That being said, I doubt GM will ever address this unless it is to announce that they have resubmitted to testing and gotten a 5 star rating.

[BAD BRAD]

I COULD CARE LESS ABOUT 4 OR 5 STAR RATING AS LONG AS GM DOES NOT LIE ABOUT IT. I WAS UNDER THE IMMPRESSION THAT IT HAD AREADY GOT 5 STAR RATING. JUST WANT SAFE AND TESTED CAR FOR EVERONE.

[gred04]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

But gred, there isn't enough emphasis on safe driving these days. Too many people rely on their car to protect them. I just don't understand that kind of philosophy. Sure, I want a "safe" car as much as the next guy, but a car is only as safe as it's pilot.

"The assumption for every type of vehicle protection system is that operator will be using the vehicle safely."

Really? So the new feature on Volvo's where the car can stop itself is making that assumption?

I agree that more than any time before we have issues today with drivers not practicing safe driving techniques. However, as someone mentioned earlier, the crash ratings tell the consumers which manufacturers crash protection system work best in consistent given tests.

In the real world not every driver will have the same expertise even given the same experience level. So it doesnt really matter what or who causes the system to come into play it's just great to have something available first and foremost.

Sorry I am not aware of the Volvo system you mentioned.

I may be over simplifying but a car is a product with massive liability potential and everything about a vehicle is designed based upon normalized ( or safe ) operation. Everything from tires to oil to car seats to the radio to the drivetrain have this in mind. Of course people can and often do operator a vehicle or component outside those reccomendations but manufacturers have to have a operating standpoint in which to begin.

[Super83Z]

Originally Posted by BAD BRAD

I COULD CARE LESS ABOUT 4 OR 5 STAR RATING AS LONG AS GM DOES NOT LIE ABOUT IT. I WAS UNDER THE IMMPRESSION THAT IT HAD AREADY GOT 5 STAR RATING. JUST WANT SAFE AND TESTED CAR FOR EVERONE.

They wouldn't intentionally lie. In their own testing they must have gotten info that made it look like 5-star. Perhaps either the government changed the regulations or GM didn't do the same test as the government.

If you could open your mind to the butterfly wings could cause a hurricane mentality its possible for 2 different crash ratings for the same type of impact. Could GM have tested a car with different options than the government tested car? These things could play a factor.

[stratman]

I think what skooter is trying to say is people place more importance on the safety rating of their car than their ability to safely and effectively operate their vehicle. The difference between a 4 and five star rating is far less of a danger than the difference between a good and a bad driver. I also believe his emphasis on being an engineer is important in his opinion. Being engineers gives us a different view or analysis of the same information. Some see a 1 star difference from the highest rating as significant where we may see a 4% variance in likely hood of "serious" injury in a head on collision with a vehicle of like size, weight and crash test rating to be slightly more insignificant than the likely hood that beautifully exact scenario ever takes place. Most people understand nothing more of the crash ratings then there are 5 stars and 5 is the best. Not the only acceptable. What are 1-4 even for.

And the whole car A car B thing is an over simplification.

[gred04]

Originally Posted by stratman

I think what skooter is trying to say is people place more importance on the safety rating of their car than their ability to safely and effectively operate their vehicle.

And the whole car A car B thing is an over simplification.

I think you are only looking at this from one possibile perspective.

You can be the greatest, most skilled, and safest driver in history and encounter a drunk driver head on. Have 20 years of accident-free experience and hit a washed out piece of roadway causing loss of control, get stuck driving in a storm that impairs vision and/or traction, or crash with another vehicle due to some blindspot condition. In situations like these it is unlikely more skill is going to save you everytime.

I think fdjizm post that gave a A/B comparision is exactly what crash IMPACT ratings/tests are all about.

[Mosher]

Something else about those "Crash ratings" is they are a little scewed. A smart car or Mini may have gotten 4 stars, but that was in relation to the size automobile.

Here is what happens when a small car hits a big car.



I was really more interested in the side impact then frontal on the Camaro, and it scored 5 stars there, I also watched the video and it looked really impressive how it took the hit.

There are already posts of highspeed front impact on new 2010 Camaro's. These people were way above the testing speed in those tests, and they are still alive. Any concern over safety in the event of a crash in this car was pretty much answered right there. It's just as safe as anyone can expect it to be.

[fdjizm]

Originally Posted by Mosher

Something else about those "Crash ratings" is they are a little scewed. A smart car or Mini may have gotten 4 stars, but that was in relation to the size automobile.

Here is what happens when a small car hits a big car.



I was really more interested in the side impact then frontal on the Camaro, and it scored 5 stars there, I also watched the video and it looked really impressive how it took the hit.

There are already posts of highspeed front impact on new 2010 Camaro's. These people were way above the testing speed in those tests, and they are still alive. Any concern over safety in the event of a crash in this car was pretty much answered right there. It's just as safe as anyone can expect it to be.

while what you say is true, we can still bring it back to the other argued point no crash is the same and what they survived there they wouldnt have survived if the weather was a bit different or the car spun and extra 3ft etc... so the debate can go either way, one says crash tests cant possible take every accident into account so they are invalid, one says "i have seen worse and they walked away" I say it's a base to work/judge from and i explained it in short detail on what i think the crash tests show.