t3's passive safety.




         If you are traveling, or simply moving, by your car, you are not in your home, in leisure or in  fight.   You are in defense. 


Not the analysis that you are expecting to see!


A lot belong to this discussion.

Starting from the very unique: no active, (or innactive), fuel hoses in the area of the  structure deformation in the case of a frontal or offset collision! 
(This has to do with the position of the engine, (rear), and of the fuel tank, (rear-middle)). 

No other car  has to offer  such a unique safety characteristic! 

Is there a need to stress the importance of  it?

NHTSA, NCAP, IIHS, and the other passive safety testing organisms are not referred to this point, because they are using catapults for their tests and not running engines!

And all the tests about fuel leakage are with the engine not running, like this, (VW's norm),


or like this, (NHTSA's norm):


The only other possibility, similar to this, is to be in an electric vehicle, but into water with 380v  under your feet, it doesn't seem as the perfect solution!





But there are much many more that are coming! 
(Stay tuned).

(Update 26/November/16: There was an era when anybody was interested about the position of the fuel tank.
According to this interest, t3 has its tank at the safest possible position. I have to find out where is t4's, (Syncro), tank where t5's, (Haldex), and where is t6's, (Haldex).  It seems that they are not comparable to t3 because there is no space to put the tank?). 

 29/November/16

Soooo.....

Fuel tank of the Syncro t4:

Rear 

 Front

 Fuel tank of the 4motion t5(Haldex):

 (Dismantled for service reasons).

Drivers side


And here is the fuel tank of the premium Syncro t3, above the gear box.

 



The above is the official crash test of the t4.
 As you can see, once more, all the tests are with the engine not working, using catapults for the necessary movements.

A common and minor accident, (for the t4), resulting in four deaths. The t4 caught fire. 




 

 No, if there are any conclusions I am not allowed to express them here.




A similar problem.




Next are the three, official, crash test videos offered by VW.
Some questions are unanswered since  the regulations of the era were not so stringent.   
(But we'll try to update the questions and the answers).






Soooo.......

An absolute punishment for any car...

Small  overlap test for the t3 Syncro?

But how it can be? 


"Volvo Page Edit

Liftarn, I am new to wikipedia edits so please excuse me if I have erred. I recently make a change to Volvo_cars to remove a statement regarding the C-pillar that I believe to be incorrect. You replaced it with "The Volvo 745 had some severe problems that could cause sever injuries in a frontal colission.[14]" Apart from the spelling mistakes, that too is an unsupportable conclusion from ref 14 (the Vanagon - Volvo 745 crash test). Please refer to the discussion page for my justification for the edit. Why did you undo my change? User:garlandw72.39.151.5 (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You may fix the spelling if you want, but the facts are correct. Both about the C pillar and the rename from 740 to 940. The full ref is not avaoilable online as far as I have found. // Liftarn (talk)

Please clarify. Please explain how there is a problem with the Volvo 745 C-pillar based on the video images of the reference. In the images, the C-pillar is not damaged. The A-pillar is squashed right up to the B-pillar but that is NOT because of a faulty design; it is squashed because the Vanagon is high. Any vehicle will undergo an A-pillar deformation if the impact comes in at that height.

 I repeat, it is not a fault of the 745; it is merely a consequence of this particular accident. Since the images were posted on a Vanagon site, it appears that the point of the test is to show that the Vanagon is not quite the death trap that it first appears to be because the front structure is quite rigid and higher than a typical car

. To prove the point, they crashed it into what was widely achnowledged to be one of the safest cars on the road at the time - the 745. They could have used a big Mersedes and have gotten the same result. This of course points to an important safety issue, the mismatch of vehicle heights, that deserves a full discussion given the number of SUVs and large trucks on the road these days and the push to smaller, greener passenger cars. But again, to finger the 745 as the issue is wrong. I am not disputing the fact that the 740 series became the 940 series; that is well known.

 Nor am I disputing that the 940 has some safety improvements over the 740 (SIPS for instance). I am quite familiar with the 745 and I have never heard of the C-pillar weakness that you claim. I also checked with the large collection of experienced people in the Volvo owners community at http://www.brickboard.com. They never heard of a C-pillar weakness. So please back up your claim that there are severe problems in a 745 that could cause severe injuries in a frontal collision. If you can't do that, then please remove that statement as per the spirit of Wikipedia.

 User:garlandw72.39.151.5 (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The original source is a Folksam study that showed a weakness in the Volvo 745 design. // Liftarn (talk)"

Can you , ever, imagine what is the above document?



Not a NHTSA, IIHS, NCAP, ADAC, etc., etc., test.
Common cars, of any era, cannot pass it. 

A car that is so unconventional that, if you are ready to use its full potential making correct adjustments, no front airbags are needed, because no steering wheel nor  dashboard are in the passengers head path in the case of an accident?  

I mean something like this? (Please focus on the passengers, (right), side).


 l

But wait...isn't this Volvo 740 the car mentioned in the above document of the Volvo officials, where they are trying to understand some, really, unexplained facts connected to the passive safety of their safest, (of the era), baby when something, really strange, happened in a crash test vs a Vanagon, (2wd)?

According to NHTSA's mesurement for the HIC, f.ex., the results had to be much more worse for the Vanagon and much more better for the Volvo. 

You see, NHTSA and ADAC had some wrong procedures crash testing Vanagon t3(t25), because they were trying to include it to the ordinary testing norms.

But the greatest wrong was from VW, which was unwilling and unable to explain how much and why this car is so unconventional to any point and, between the others, to its passive safety.

And all this misconceptions had its pros and its cons.

The pros are that the results, in the real life, where so much better than the expected, and to be more specific, since,  in the U.SA., they are willing and capable to measure anything, an impressive 62% better, (from 1.6 to 0.6, IIHS data).



 The cons are that there was, (and there is), the possibility of much better results, (much less deaths), simply by making some very simple...adjustments.

But, yes I know, some of you are not familiar of the above mentioned event and what happened between a Volvo 740 and a Vanagon, (2wd).

So I' ll come back, as soon as possible, to explain everything.(08 December 2016). 

This for those who do not understand how a car may be safe without airbags:
  
Auto moto und sport:
Audi Procon-Ten

The above two, so informative and out of the limits, video clips are a part of the "Auto moto und Sport"'s traditional crash test which you can find here:


and where  the narrator, (07:40),  says that the chances for injuries in the Audi for the driver with the Procon-Ten, where, just, "slight".


And this video is dedicated to those who think of the airbags as a panacea:
 






Back to business and let me to introduce to you a very nice classic car, (80's), the above mentioned Volvo 740/745 (station vagon), which was selected for a crash test vs Vanagon (2wd).



 The emphasis to the safety given by the Volvo for any of its models is well known and was emphasized by this ad:
But nobody could imagine what was going to happen if a so well organized theory had to meet another theory which, even the inventor who thought of the t3 as an equal to the golf I in terms of passive safety, was unexplained, and not widely accepted and certified.

Some, first, evidences where visible, though:

 4-5 times bigger permanent deformation had two common cars vs t3, in two, 100% overlap, tests.

"Verhalten der VW-Transporter bei Frontalkollisionen mit Personenkraftwagen

1982, p. 117 (#6)

Inhaltsverzeichnis



Zitat

Bürger, Ha. Verhalten der VW-Transporter bei Frontalkollisionen mit Personenkraftwagen

Inhaltsangabe

Zwei Kollisionsversuche mit der Front eines VW Transporters T3 (ab Bj. 1979) gegen die Front eines stehenden Pkw (Überdeckung 100%). Die Versuche wurden mit 60,3 km/h und mit 73 km/h gefahren. Die Masse des Transporters lag mit 1655 kg im ersten Versuch über der des zweiten Versuchs (1560 kg). Im Versuch 1 wies der gecrashte Pkw eine Masse von 1240 kg auf, im Versuch 2 1535 kg. Auch ein VW Campingbus der Fa. Westfalia (größere Masse) wurde verwendet. Die bleibenden Verformungen der Pkws waren ca. 4-5 mal größer. Die Struktur des Vorderwagens des VW Transporters hinterhalb des Frontblechs ist auf (dem leider sehr dunkel geratenen) Bild 9 zu erkennen."

Where a t3 destroys a K70, (crashes at 72 km/h), and, after that, it is ready for a new adventure:


Knallefekt(=Bombshell)

So, the unconventional theory, ((partly used by Mercedes, 20 years later, to the Smart), no bonnet, an energy absorption element, in dome shape, (based on 2 Y shaped, powerful chassis strains), covering the full width of the car, a gossamer to convert the horizontal forces to vertical in order to absorb the impact energy, exoskeleton reinforcements of the safety cage, a two stage cage to protect the passengers and their feet, a steering wheel axle  parallel to the driver's body, (and not vertical as usually), folded to protect him under pressure in conjunction with a steering wheel which never meets driver's head and has withdrawn half body, (under pressure), to protect the chest, dashboard which never, (within logical limits), meets drivers or passengers head or knees in a crash, (seats adjusted properly), windshield far away from passengers heads, which, above some g's is withdrawed, no engine hood to hit the passengers of the other vehicle as a blade from the high height, (low aggressiveness, NHTSA's aggressivity metric 31, lowest of all vans, 57 is the average)), has to meet Volvo's theory.





Thorax





Unwrap! 




Please, look at the #2 bar, how it is connected to the cross member at a slight angle.

And here is the result of the total design as a gossip, (or as a tennis ball net), where tremendous amounts of energy are absorbed, turning them from horizontal to vertical.

Outer-inner shell.
 




The deformation element, the "Y" strands, (first time introduced to a forward control car), (VW's crash test #2 video, at 01:30), the inner, second line, of defense for the feet protection, disturbing the energy to the exoskeleton, and the steering wheel axle with its joints and the two "S" type carriers, ready to be automatically disconnected from the main frame, paralleling its self to the drivers body. Additionally, we can see the steering wheel with its two, only, spokes, ready to be deformed under chest pressure in the case of an accident, (VW's crash test #2 video, at 02:40).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   


With encapsulated rollbars.



A rare photo for a Syncro crash test.













So back to the rival, lets try to know him a little bit better: 





 

I repeat the above Volvo's offset crash test here for easy reference and in order to stress its perfect behavior in offset crash tests, apart from the driver's head hitting the steering wheel.

I am sure that not only at '80s but even today, anyone asked about an offset crash test between  a VW t3 and a VOLVO 740 would have the opinion that there will was no chance for the driver of the t3.


 So, after all this, here are the rivals:

A nice green t3:


But wait... Wrong! The above is not a 2wd t3. It is a Syncro, a much better t3 than a 2wd in crashes, for reasons that will be explained, (later on). 

So here we are:
 

                  A, (no bonnet),  2wd  Vanagon                                           
                                                                               VS
                                                                                            a Volvo 745, (745=station wagon 740).


"In the time my dad owned the Vanagon that I now drive, it was involved in two accidents with other vehicles. Both times, the other cars suffered heavy damage, but the Vanagon never received anything more than cosmetic damage. It's built like a German tank". (From the internet).

Considerable

"
Real-World Crash Data Disputes NHTSA and IIHS Test Results
By Frank Williams on January 4, 2008

Pickup trucks may not be the deathtraps the NHTSA and IIHS tests make them out to be. Forbes reports research done by Virginia Commonwealth University that compared crash test ratings against data on fatal crashes. They found that while cars with higher crash test ratings show fewer fatalities than those with lower ratings, the same wasn't true for pickup trucks. In the NHTSA and IIHS tests, trucks are crashed into stationary barriers while in the real world, most crashes are vehicle-to-vehicle. In those cases, researchers postulate, the ladder frame in the pickups act as a "battering ram," allowing it to withstand an impact from a smaller, lighter vehicle better than when striking a stationary barrier. Of course, the IIHS dismisses the idea, saying they have no evidence that ladder-frame construction has any effect on crashworthiness. After all, why let real-world facts get in the way of laboratory results?" 



 This test was made in 1994 by one of the biggest Swedish insurance companies, Folksam.


 A Volvo 745 and a VW Caravelle (Vanagon)  were smashed together at respectively 58 km/h and were aligned so that they made a fifty-fifty frontal impact.

The Caravelle (Vanagon) climbed on top of the Volvo and cut into the cabin. 

Conclusion was that the VW's rigid design "cannibalizes" the Volvos impact zones. 

The results below conclude that the volvo driver was killed instantly while the VW driver prolly suffered minor bumps and bruises.

NOTE: 

HIC: greater than 1000 results in death.

Head impact: limit at 88g, would be 72 g, since 88 g is just as bad as a HIC of 1000. 

Chest impact: greater than 60 G results in death.



RESULTS:

HIC (Head Injury Criterion) for driver, Volvo: 3,868, VW: 155

Head Impact, Volvo: 200 G, VW: 42 G

Chest impact, Volvo: 65 G, VW: 30 G

Photos from the event.

Preparations.






The above photo is the Vanagon from the event, although in different color from the initial.
This difference, must have to do with problems in the picture reception and has a conjuction to the preparation photo hue.
(Unfortunately I was unable to find something more). 
Please check how much different from the common cars is the position of the steering wheel, contributing to a low HIC, and why an airbag has nothing to offer, with a, preprogrammed,  popped out  windshield, as it is seen in serial photos.


I repeat here, for easy reference purposes, the Volvo's officials panic dialogue, after the above crash test.

And something more: it is a lie that a Vanagon has higher bumper than a Volvo, or than any passenger car. Bumpers height is adjusted according to some rules, (within some limits), otherwise the model cannot be certified.




"Volvo Page Edit

Liftarn, I am new to wikipedia edits so please excuse me if I have erred. I recently make a change to Volvo_cars to remove a statement regarding the C-pillar that I believe to be incorrect. You replaced it with "The Volvo 745 had some severe problems that could cause sever injuries in a frontal colission.[14]" Apart from the spelling mistakes, that too is an unsupportable conclusion from ref 14 (the Vanagon - Volvo 745 crash test). Please refer to the discussion page for my justification for the edit. Why did you undo my change? User:garlandw72.39.151.5 (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You may fix the spelling if you want, but the facts are correct. Both about the C pillar and the rename from 740 to 940. The full ref is not avaoilable online as far as I have found. // Liftarn (talk)

Please clarify. Please explain how there is a problem with the Volvo 745 C-pillar based on the video images of the reference. In the images, the C-pillar is not damaged. The A-pillar is squashed right up to the B-pillar but that is NOT because of a faulty design; it is squashed because the Vanagon is high. Any vehicle will undergo an A-pillar deformation if the impact comes in at that height.

 I repeat, it is not a fault of the 745; it is merely a consequence of this particular accident. Since the images were posted on a Vanagon site, it appears that the point of the test is to show that the Vanagon is not quite the death trap that it first appears to be because the front structure is quite rigid and higher than a typical car

. To prove the point, they crashed it into what was widely achnowledged to be one of the safest cars on the road at the time - the 745. They could have used a big Mersedes and have gotten the same result. This of course points to an important safety issue, the mismatch of vehicle heights, that deserves a full discussion given the number of SUVs and large trucks on the road these days and the push to smaller, greener passenger cars. But again, to finger the 745 as the issue is wrong. I am not disputing the fact that the 740 series became the 940 series; that is well known.

 Nor am I disputing that the 940 has some safety improvements over the 740 (SIPS for instance). I am quite familiar with the 745 and I have never heard of the C-pillar weakness that you claim. I also checked with the large collection of experienced people in the Volvo owners community at http://www.brickboard.com. They never heard of a C-pillar weakness. So please back up your claim that there are severe problems in a 745 that could cause severe injuries in a frontal collision. If you can't do that, then please remove that statement as per the spirit of Wikipedia.

 User:garlandw72.39.151.5 (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The original source is a Folksam study that showed a weakness in the Volvo 745 design. // Liftarn (talk)"



(To be continued)

 (10/December/2016)


But are these results real?

Are they repeated and confirmed in real life crashes? 

Has NHTSA and ADAC made any wrong in their, (varying), evaluations?

Lots of work...


Real life crashes.


" Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 6:15 am    Post subject: Safety Vanagon 1982: A tribute to our Westy

Reply with quote

Hi everyone,

Before we bought our beloved VW Vanagon (1982), we were wondering about the safety of these cars. Three weeks ago we had an accident in California (going about 40 miles per hour) and as you can see in the picture, our van was total. Even so, we only have minor injuries. So the van has proven safe in our case. It even saved our lives!

Petra and Ruben"

 
 Petra's and Ruben's Vanagon.

http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4668069#4668069



From the German Press.

Bmw's driver went suddenly to the wrong direction. Badly injured went to the hospital. t3's passengers with light injuries. (Nothing mentioned about the speed of the vehicles or if the occupants used their seat belts).


Next is coming a story mr. George Drakoulogonas told me, a Syncro t3 owner.

No photos but an honest narration, since he was under psychological pressure because of the delay of his compensation for the damage.

You see we take as granted that anyone uses his seat belt, but it seems that still there are drivers who do not, especially when they are driving to the country having the feeling that nobody else is there.

 So, mr. Drakoulogonas was driving on a narrow road, (exactly for two cars), with a lot of curves, without wearing his seat belt.

His speed was about 50 km/h, when, on a right curve with no vision, a Passat b5, (year 2000 model), was coming with the same, more or less, speed.

There was a strong frontal crash, (90% coverage), and mr. Drakoulogonas  crushed, with his body, the steering wheel, wearing no seat belt, which deformed exactly as provided by the manufacturer.

Feeling o.k. after that, he got out of the car to see what happened to the Passat driver.

Passat's driver was not wearing his belt, also, and had a very bad moment, rocketed between the two airbags and crushed the windshield with his head.

He was able to get out of  his car, but it took to him about 15' minutes to breath normally.

The two cars, although both were VW, had a very different post crash profile.

The Syncro maintained its basic characteristics, with minor damages, a dent to the bumper, crushed various plastics and the two radiators, the one for the engine and the other for the air conditioner.

The Passat almost demolished, no gear shift was possible, (except the reverse), and the engine was touching the firewall, Passat having now a different strange profile, if you know what I mean.

You don't?

Just a moment to show you. 




No, no, that's very bad!


And the next is very bad but, well,  this is, real, life:


Audi A6, (2000+ model), vs Syncro.






Because someone can say that the Volvo is just a car of  the 80's... 

There are no data about Audi's driver or about the use of the seat belts.

Syncro's driver, (who took these photos immediately after the crash), complaining about a light pain to his knee and some, light  pain  to his eyes, since he hit the door frame with his head.
(The link I had about this event is broken). 

(to be continued) 




"Applause Hellenic Vanagon, great job! How do you know so much about this? Were you one (of) the original syncro engineers? Wink"

15/December/16

Now, with this, I am going to impress folks from U.S.A., at least. (Happily,  there are many).

A very common and respected van/people mover/bus to the states is this:

1995 Dodge Ram.

It  is equipped with airbags. 



 Very respected is and this:


 1995 Toyota Tacoma Extended Cab.

Equiped with airbags.


I will give you NCAP's comparative data about the possibilities for injuries under their standard way of measurements. 
(Before that I have to stress that all crash test institutes  make the same wrong measuring the uncoventional  Vanagon, the results must be much better than given about Vanagon, and I wiil explain later on the why).

So, Vanagon, without airbags, vs many and, between others, the above mentioned, die hard, Dodge Ram with airbags, and Toyota Tacoma, with airbags:









 (AEΡΟΣΑΚΟΣ = ΑΙRBAG)

As you can see, the possibilities for injuries are less for the driver and front passenger in a Vanagon, without airbags, than in a Ram, or in a Tacoma, with airbags!

But...
Because as there is an inherent wrong about the measurements for the Vanagon, (as mentioned again previously), in the real life, the things are even better for the Vanagon.
And talking about "real life" data, there are two main categories: 
a)what we can collect from accidents, as citizens, and
b)what is collected and analyzed, scientifically,  by dedicated institutions.  
Two of these institutions are the IIHS, of  the U.S.A., and  the Folksam, of  Sweden, (they who performed the crash test Vanagon/Volvo 745).

 The importance of the real life data can be shown here. Although Suzuki Sidekick/Tracker/Vitara has a relatively good grade, for driver, (better than Vanagon's), and front passenger, in reference to the above test, in real life IIHS's reports is one of the worst performers:



30/March/17, update.

Once upon a time  this crash test was executed:






An early 40% offset, the only one ever, t3 crash test!

Here is the relevant  video:


What a treasure!

Many points for discussion, we'll see many of them, but firstly just this, (which is already said):

wearing the belt, there is no need for airbags, since, due to the cockpit's geometry and construction, there is no contact of the head to the steering wheel! (For the t3). (At 10:00). Absolutely no contact which means HIC=0!

One more very important point, which is over the norms of the international organisms having the scope to check the vehicle's crasworthiness: in the above test, (and all the crash tests of the world), the engines of the tested vehicles are not working. Can you imagine a crash with a working engine at any of the Japan garbage?
 (Of course, as already said, the rear engined t3, has no fuel lines nor any mechanical part near the crash).

For the Syncro, and due to its robust front double chassis, the results are even better, and, (with only a little more try), they can be much  better!

The above t3's behavior  is better than many nowadays cars with all their deceptive, (in many cases), safety systems.

But what about an U.S.A's similar, heavy and luxurious car of the era?

Let's have a look for comparison reasons, revealing a loud question: how t3, without any bonnet, using the  knowledge available of the same period, can be so much better?


Looking better to the above, it seems, (it is not clear), that the safety belts used here are of the two points belts, not the three points which became mandatory after 1980.

So let's have a look to a similar, with 3 points belts.





Now, within other duties, it is time to introduce NHTSA's three crash tests and see why they are, e, hmmm..., inaccurate!



11/April/2017, Update.



A small parenthesis opens:

Those airbags...

C/NET:

"Airbag saves man, then kills him

An engineer is saved in a crash by his airbag. However, during the crash, the airbag bursts and the man inhales some of its noxious chemical fumes. He dies two months later, the fumes being cited as a cause of death."

 source

" NHTSA reports that, as of July 2003, there were 231 confirmed deaths caused by airbag deployments in crashes that would otherwise not have been life threatening".

"The total number of driver and right-front passenger fatalities in cars and light trucks remained relatively unchanged from 1994 through 2002 even as the percent of drivers with airbags increased from 13% to 60% and the percent of passengers with airbags increased from 3% to 50%.2 This finding alone is sufficient to reject the claim that airbags would prevent 12,100 fatalities, as promised in the documentation used to justify the airbag mandate".

  "In one case a woman passenger in a vehicle with no passenger airbag suffered ear injuries that had a devastating effect on her quality of life. A driver-side airbag deploying in a low-severity crash caused her injury. She had no crash-related trauma - her only harm was from the airbag. These injuries are, in principle, included in the injury effectiveness estimates of airbags, but some are of a nature that might be missed in the usual processes of AIS coding."

 "Of the 77 drivers NHTSA identified as killed by airbags in low severity crashes, 75% were female. That is, for every male killed, three females were killed."
 
Science Serving Society, by Leonard Evans


 
“In high severity fatal crashes, airbag deployment was not statistically significant in reducing the odds of belted driver fatalities.”

   "Study of airbag effectiveness in high severity frontal crashes".

     
 Also, according to the AORC, the recommended hand position on steering wheels has changed from ten and two to nine and three o’clock in order to avoid damage to the radius and ulna, the bones in the arm and also to prevent the arm from damaging the face after it is hit by the airbag.        

SCI JOURNER, "The hidden hazards of airbags", 22/June/2010, article excerpt.


"This week's nationwide recall by federal safety regulators on vehicles that contain air bags by the Japanese supplier Takata has consumers on high alert as they try to understand how a safety restraint system that is supposed to protect them could cause bodily harm.  

More than 14 million vehicles from 11 automakers have been recalled worldwide since 2008 over concerns about the Takata-made air bags, including Ford, Honda, Chrysler, Mazda and BMW, mostly from models made in 2008 or earlier. 

 In some cases, drivers died after a Takata air bag inflater ruptured and sprayed metal shrapnel into the car. Regulators are asking for more information on the propellant being used in Takata air bags, to find out if ammonium nitrate—a common compound used in fertilizer—is one of them".

CNBC, article excerpt, 20/November/2014, Lori Ioannou.


But we will discuss many more about the huge topic  "airbags" in a specific page with the central idea "airbags" and if there may be better alternatives, later on.


(Of course I know that here you are hearing another voice).



Introducing SARAC.


 What is SARAC:

"The Safety Rating Advisory Committee (SARAC) is an international forum initiated by the German insurance organisation GDV and the European Comité Europeén des Assurances (CEA). It brings together experts from the crash research community, government agencies, universities and automobile manufacturers. Research was undertaken in the SARAC 1 and SARAC II projects between 1999-2006 funded by the European Commission and the Comité Europeén des Assurances (CEA). In SARACII, safety ratings from around the world were examined to identify and develop advanced methods to assess crashworthiness and aggressivity and other aspects of statistical reliability, presentation of results and areas requiring further research.
SARACII indicated that an ideal retrospective rating should have:
  • A measure of impact severity
  • A range of variables that provide good proxies for impact severity if no measure is available
  • Good data on non-vehicle variables that affect injury outcomes and differ from vehicle to vehicle
  • Full reporting on injury and non injury crashes
None of the existing data sets on which rating systems are based meet these requirements in full. No existing rating has a measure of impact severity and it is not clear how well the available proxy measures represent impact severity. In addition to the need for action on assessing and recording impact severity, SARAC also highlights the need for action on the recording of vehicle annual kilometrage/mileage, the Vehicle Identification Number (as required in the US) and the availability of Event Data Recorders all of which would improve the retrospective rating data sets".

What SARAC have found:


 and 



Parenthesis closes.


You see, they make tests like this:



 (IIHS mf 1130 pdf)

in order to convince us that there is no other way!


11/October/2017

"Popular mechanics" for the t3:

"22 brutal Crash Tests That Changed The Way Cars Are Built"

Yes, not the t2, not the t4, not the t5, not even the t6, (or the t46),

BUT the t3:




The shocking truth: the no airbags passive safety:


(Of the '70s).


(to be continued)



07/December/2017

More: 

Factoid #1: 

Tough and soft.




Real life crash test. 2wd Vanagon, driven by an old lady not wearing a seat belt.

Important to remember that a Syncro has a subchassis, so the buckling of the 2wd Vanagon's cabin you see here cannot happen with a 4wd, Syncro Vanagon/t3.


Vs an Oldsmobile Cutlass, with a very strong structure.

Since the Vanagon is well described here, let's see, briefly, the Oldsmobile, with it's impressive engine bonnet:



The Vanagon, according to the IIHS, is, between other 3-4 cars, the safest car of the 80's, with the lowest death rate.

But, strangely enough, the same  is true for the Cutlass!

They have the same IIHS death rate!

But the same death rate is achieved by another, above mentioned, offset crashed against Vanagon, car: the Volvo 745!

Lets' have a look:



So here is another factoid:

Factoid #2:

Two cars with the same crash/death rating, when tested the one vs  the other, do not, necessarily, behave equally, are not equally good or bad!

Let's remember how the Volvo 745 received the 50% offset frontal collision against the Vanagon:




Is such a picture possible for the Cutlass, having  a tremendous bonnet and  ample space for the creation of crumple zones? 

A 1989 commercial for the 4 door edition.


A 4 door edition accident, to have a, very, rough idea about it's crash behavior. (Substantial).


The NHTSA's, 2 doors, ratings.


The accident.

Approaching the scene...



The Vanagon after the crash. There is ample surviving space, if you wear your seat belt, which is not the case with the old lady driving it.

The, 2wd, (inferior to a double chassis Syncro), crumbled Vanagon.

According to my decades experience, if you have in front of you such a deformed Vanagon, the things will be terrible for the other car, (and it's occupants, unfortunately). 

The Cutlass:





(to be continued)


29/August/2018

#1

Real life crash test and the driver's description:



·          Q:     Can you say please few words about the accident and the other car's damages? (If it was a car).
Which are your thoughts about Vanagon's passive safety?
Thank you.

·         A:  "Of course. It was around 4 a.m. in a highway between Alicante to Valencia (Spain).

I fell asleep driving, some zig-zags on the road, bursting right tire (see video), then falling to the right side out and flying 2
 meters long before landing. 

From start to end of the accident it took 110 meters aproximately during several seconds
 (maybe 20). Speed around 95 Kms/hour".


#2

Folksam, the big Swedish insurance company, gave the maximum grade to the t3's, (2wd), passive safety:



To give you a comparison, here are the grades for other similar cars:




And here are some family cars of the era:


The only objection to the above data is that later on they revised their original grades saying that the circumstances on the road have change, so they degrade their classification for the most of the above cars, (and the t3), but they forgot to degrade their VOLVO 700/900, the one they crash tested against the t3, having exceptional results for the Vanagon and disastrous for the Volvo. (It seems that Swedish people forget easily some lessons, about which you can see in the previously, extensively, introduced case study/crash test).


Some more real life crashes from my archives of the 40 years, (almost), research:

#1


"Thank's Vanagon, you did a great job!"

"We T-Boned a 4-door Toyota on the way home from Gabriel's tonight, but the Picketts are all okay (aside from "seat belt bruises").

 They pulled out onto the highway without yielding. We must have been going about 50 when we hit them.

The windshield popped out of the Vanagon and landed 15 feet in front of us, and the radiator was leaking all over the ground but as far as I could tell we could have driven it away if we'd had to (like, if we were being chased by Godzilla or something).

 The horn was stuck on which I found amusing after I'd determined the other driver still had her head attached to her body. I wouldn't trust the chassis of the Vanagon anymore though, it went from 50 to 0 in an awful hurry. I'm amazed my feet weren't broken.

We took a good 2 feet of interior space away from their car. The lady driving lost consciousness but later regained. 

As they took her to the ambulance she sat up and asked to get her purse, so I'm hoping she'll pull through. 

The passenger was acting delerious but was walking around. They will both probably have some pretty serious spinal problems, from having been laterally accelerated from 0 to nearly 50 then back to 0 in under a second.

We (Picketts) all had our seat belts on. The Vanagon doesn't have air bags, and in this one particular crash that probably kept us from getting any further injuries. Our next car will have a full suite of air bags though.

At the hospital we discovered Amy has an extra rib at the top of her rib cage! So that's neat.

On the way out to eat I was thinking to myself that if we didn't have a car at all we'd be riding our bikes more and would be saving lots of money on gas, and we would think going to Gabriel's was a big deal.

The really big irony is that on the way home we were continuing our earlier discussion about whether or not we should try to sell the Vanagon and get a smaller car.

This is just the beginning of the story, I'm sure. We still don't know if the other driver was drunk, for instance. I'm a little concerned that nobody tested me for blood alcohol but I guess the officer decided I was acting pretty sober. We don't know if the other driver was insured, either.

Our insurance paperwork was expired by a couple weeks so we got a citation. We have to go to Santa Fe Magistrate court and show that yes, indeed, we were insured then. 

The officer said 9 times out of 10 they'll just let us go, maybe with an admonishment which I'm sure will be well-heeded. When he (the officer) asked me what happened, I told him, and his reply was a reassuring "yeah, that was my guess as soon as I saw it." So as far as liability goes I'm not going to lose any sleep.

We got home about 11:15. Ginnie fell asleep instantly. I'm going to bed now, Amy's got the TV on but I'll try to convince her to come with me. We're all going to be sore as hell tomorrow morning.

Thanks Vanagon, you did a great job!"


#2


"I am impressed..."


"My well loved (and worked on!) syncro Westy was lost yesterday. I was returning to Portland from Newport on the Oregon Coast on Hi-Way 20 about 10 miles West of Philomath. I was traveling up hill in the outside lane towards the brow of a hill at about 45mph when a pick up truck coming in the other direction headed straight towards me across three traffic lanes. There was nothing I could do except pray that he woke up in time and swerved away - he didn't. He hit me right in the center of the drivers door at full hi-way speed (if I had braked it would have been head on). As you can see he then ran down the left side of the van stripping the sheet metal clean away and impacting the rear corner very hard before going down the road and making some large dents in the roadside impact railing. He left his front left wheel and suspension (almost bare tires!) just behind my van. Fortunately and surprisingly, injuries to us and the dogs that each of us had amounted to minor scratches and bruises. 

The inside of the van looks like a bomb went off. The water tank exploded (in fact I couldn't even see any remains) and the cabinetry was matchwood and spread everywhere. The mountain bike I had in the back was bent and most everything else was smashed and soaked with water. I took a trip to hospital in an ambulance but checked out OK with just a minor cut above my left eye. Tha van is at a tow yard in Corvalis now. 

One of the fortunate aspects of the crash was that my wife was following in her car (she had joined me late) saw the whole thing and we were able to rescue some of our possessions and get home. The other is that our dog was in the front with me and not sitting on the rear bench seat where he often sits - he would not be alive now if he had been. 

I am impressed with how well the area around the front door absorbed the impact without deforming into the driver space - mostly it was absorbed by the frame around the wheel arch and the sill along the bottom of the door (note the damage to the front wheel). I am not sure the outcome would have been as good in a car. Also of interest was the fact that the propane tank was full and the fridge was on at the time of the crash. There have been numerous posts in this forum about the advisability of doing this. All I can say is that with this sample size of one, the crash cut off valve worked perfectly - I could not even smell any propane, not that I am recommending it mind you!" 




#3


"The safest choice..."


"Here's a story that just happened tonight in the Big Apple! 

I was driving down Canal street in Manhattan and a psycho in a non VW van rammed into another car.

 He decided to flee the scene and slammed through me driving insanely fast (in Friday night traffic!) to make his escape. 

Everyone is safe and fine including my precious baby. Although he escaped, my only damage is a mangled bumper. 

That's right, an aggressive driver in a large, equal sized vehicle intentionaly attacked us, and ripped apart his entire front end. 

We didn't even feel it; and he was at full ramming speed. He looked right into my eyes and gunned it. 

Well, he escaped to the Holland Tunnel, no one got a plate #, and the NYPD probably won't be able to do much. But they were very nice and gave me a chocolate cannoli. Sometimes chocolate does make everything better. 

So, just remember, we're driving tanks here. A Westy is the safest choice you can make for your family, your life. My passeneger friend was amazed that I wasn't even fazed. Guess I'll just pop off that bumper. I love knowing that I don't drive some fancy pants plastic car that I have to cry about. 

This website was my first step to owning a Westfalia, and you know what, okay, I'm getting very misty here, special, special blessings to Captain Mike, the support I've had to follow through and love my Westy, saved two lives tonight.

 Captain Mike, if I had given up and was in any other vehicle, I wouldn't be writing this post right now. I'm sending much love to the board tonight, and thanks for giving so much. Every moment in the Westy is special, but this experience is another level of perspective for me. 

Love, Adriane"


#4



Police report 
(2wd Vanagon camper)







No serious injuries in U.S. 101 rollover



 Published on Sun, Jan 24, 2010 by Brian Gawley



"At least one person was taken to Olympic Medical Center Sunday afternoon following this two-vehicle collision at U.S. Highway 101 and Kitchen-Dick Road.

 Photos by Brian Gawle


 One vehicle was flipped on its top but no one was seriously injured Sunday afternoon in a two-vehicle collision at U.S. Highway 101 and Kitchen-Dick Road that reduced traffic to one lane through the crash site for about an hour.

According to the Washington State Patrol, Betty L. Kaczynski, 59, of Sequim, was driving a Volkswagen Vanagon southbound on Kitchen-Dick Road about 4 p.m. Sunday.

She turned left onto U.S. Highway 101 and collided with an Infiniti driven by David G. Hefton, 23, Port Angeles, flipping her vehicle on its top.

Firefighters removed Kaczynski from the overturned Vanagon. She was treated for a leg injury at Olympic Medical Center and released. Troopers cited her for failure to yield.

Hefton was treated and released from Olympic Medical Center after treatment for injuries to his arm and right side.


Both drivers were wearing seat belts."


18/November/2018

Today proudly present  to you three rare documents. NHTSA's crash test of the early, aircooled, Vanagon, the test for the watercooled Vanagon and the last one with the changed rules for operating the same tests at higher speeds.Unfortunatelly there was no test for the Syncro which proved to be much better in the real life crash tests, due to it's subframe chassis.

These three documents, as well as, the next comments, which are repeated here, of some terrified Volvo officials, after the crash test of the 740 vs Vanagon, cannot be found anywhere else.


"Volvo Page Edit

Liftarn, I am new to wikipedia edits so please excuse me if I have erred. I recently make a change to Volvo_cars to remove a statement regarding the C-pillar that I believe to be incorrect. You replaced it with "The Volvo 745 had some severe problems that could cause sever injuries in a frontal colission.[14]" Apart from the spelling mistakes, that too is an unsupportable conclusion from ref 14 (the Vanagon - Volvo 745 crash test). Please refer to the discussion page for my justification for the edit. Why did you undo my change? User:garlandw72.39.151.5 (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You may fix the spelling if you want, but the facts are correct. Both about the C pillar and the rename from 740 to 940. The full ref is not avaoilable online as far as I have found. // Liftarn (talk)

Please clarify. Please explain how there is a problem with the Volvo 745 C-pillar based on the video images of the reference. In the images, the C-pillar is not damaged. The A-pillar is squashed right up to the B-pillar but that is NOT because of a faulty design; it is squashed because the Vanagon is high. Any vehicle will undergo an A-pillar deformation if the impact comes in at that height.

 I repeat, it is not a fault of the 745; it is merely a consequence of this particular accident. Since the images were posted on a Vanagon site, it appears that the point of the test is to show that the Vanagon is not quite the death trap that it first appears to be because the front structure is quite rigid and higher than a typical car

. To prove the point, they crashed it into what was widely achnowledged to be one of the safest cars on the road at the time - the 745. They could have used a big Mersedes and have gotten the same result. This of course points to an important safety issue, the mismatch of vehicle heights, that deserves a full discussion given the number of SUVs and large trucks on the road these days and the push to smaller, greener passenger cars. But again, to finger the 745 as the issue is wrong. I am not disputing the fact that the 740 series became the 940 series; that is well known.

 Nor am I disputing that the 940 has some safety improvements over the 740 (SIPS for instance). I am quite familiar with the 745 and I have never heard of the C-pillar weakness that you claim. I also checked with the large collection of experienced people in the Volvo owners community at http://www.brickboard.com. They never heard of a C-pillar weakness. So please back up your claim that there are severe problems in a 745 that could cause severe injuries in a frontal collision. If you can't do that, then please remove that statement as per the spirit of Wikipedia.

 User:garlandw72.39.151.5 (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The original source is a Folksam study that showed a weakness in the Volvo 745 design. // Liftarn (talk)"



The three tests, perfect in their completion, judge the car as a conventional car, so, all of them suffering from the same fundamental "wrong". But let see them and ''ll elaborate. Enjoy:

#1 1980

#2 1985

#3 1988


If you are reading these lines you are into The Syncro Heresy.


30/November/2018

Are you starving for accuracy?

Real-World Crash Data Disputes NHTSA and IIHS Test Results

By Frank Williams on January 4, 2008

Pickup trucks may not be the deathtraps the NHTSA and IIHS tests make them out to be. Forbesreports research done by Virginia Commonwealth University that compared crash test ratings against data on fatal crashes. They found that while cars with higher crash test ratings show fewer fatalities than those with lower ratings, the same wasn't true for pickup trucks. In the NHTSA and IIHS tests, trucks are crashed into stationary barriers while in the real world, most crashes are vehicle-to-vehicle. In those cases, researchers postulate, the ladder frame in the pickups act as a "battering ram," allowing it to withstand an impact from a smaller, lighter vehicle better than when striking a stationary barrier. Of course, the IIHS dismisses the idea, saying they have no evidence that ladder-frame construction has any effect on crashworthiness. After all, why let real-world facts get in the way of laboratory results?