RUCKERSVILLE, Virginia — The magnitude of the impact is, quite frankly, horrific.
Lights come on, the high-speed cameras start recording and the countdown begins. From 600 feet away, the car is launched, approaching a five-foot-tall rigid barrier at 40 miles per hour (64.4 km/h). A Hybrid III dummy representing an average-size man is positioned in the driver’s seat. Twenty-five per cent of the total width of the car strikes the barrier on the driver side. There is a thundering bang and pieces of plastic, metal and glass explode in all directions. There isn’t much left at the actual point of impact — a shattered rim inside a mangled tire, a brake caliper and rotor, what looks like some suspension components. The car has kicked violently to the right, ending up about 10 feet away and rotating some 90 degrees from its initial path. A week’s worth of preparation is all over in less than a second. The moments of silence afterward — before the close-up analysis and the cleanup begin — are eerie.
The crash is even more frightening when viewed in slow motion. You can actually see the energy from the impact shimmy through the car’s sheet metal in rolling waves. If your eyes fixate on the dummy, “he” is thrust violently forward into the expanding front airbag like a rag doll shot from a cannon, his limbs flailing from the force. Except you don’t see him — microseconds after the initial impact, the front and side airbags expand, obscuring the view.
The only thing worse is imagining a human being in place of the dummy and a road instead of a test track. Yet, if the car’s engineers did their jobs properly, the person behind the wheel should walk away from the crash.
Welcome to a regular event at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s (IIHS) test facility, here in rural Ruckersville, Virginia. Just witnessed is what’s known as the “small overlap frontal test,” a severe crash test the Institute designed in 2012 to “replicate what happens when the front corner of a vehicle collides with another vehicle or an object like a tree or utility pole.” It poses particular challenges for some seatbelt and airbag designs because occupants move both forward and toward the side of the vehicle.
Needless to say, many auto manufacturers were caught out by the small overlap test when it was first devised. “Most cars achieved Poor or Marginal ratings,” says Russ Rader, senior vice-president of communications for the IIHS, referencing the two lowest ratings the Institute applies to its test results. The two more optimal ones are Good and Acceptable.
Here’s an example of a “Poor” rating for a small overlap frontal test.
Brian Harper, Driving
The difference between the crash tests performed by the IIHS and those staged by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is that in the latter’s New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) frontal test, vehicles are crashed at 35 mph into a rigid barrier that covers the full width of the vehicle.
Conversely, the IIHS runs offset frontal tests. In an offset crash, the Institute explains, only one side of a vehicle’s front end, not the full width, hits the barrier. “As a result, a smaller part of the structure has to manage the crash energy, and intrusion into the occupant compartment is more likely. An offset test is more demanding of a vehicle’s structure than a full-width test, while a full-width test is more demanding of safety belts and airbags.”
Read more: These are the eight safest compact cars under $30,000
In a full-width test, the IIHS continues, “there is less crushing of the vehicle structure so the decelerations that these restraints must handle are greater. Together, the tests provide a more complete picture of frontal crashworthiness than either test by itself.”
By way of explanation, NHTSA is a U.S. government agency, established by the Highway Safety Act of 1970 and dedicated to “achieving the highest standards of excellence in motor vehicle and highway safety.” Founded in 1959, IIHS is a U.S. non-profit organization funded by auto insurers. Its goal, says Raul Arbelaez, vice-president of operations at the vehicle research centre, “is to reduce injuries and fatalities on (U.S. roads and) highways.”
The IIHS also tests cars for how well the roof can withstand a rollover.
Brian Harper, Driving
Arbelaez admits that the IIHS cannot force auto manufacturers to improve their safety standards beyond what is mandated by NHTSA. “However, we think consumers would want to look for a vehicle that performs well in both NHTSA and IIHS tests.” And, given the improvements made in vehicle structural rigidity, crumple zones, airbags, and active and passive safety systems over the past few years, it’s obvious the automakers don’t want to deal with the embarrassment of a poor result.
Back to that crumpled hulk lying feet away from the barrier. Its make and manufacture cannot be reported until after the IIHS finishes its evaluations and issues its findings. It is not a Subaru, however, which might be considered somewhat odd, as the auto writers watching the test were guests of Subaru Canada. The explanation provided by the company was that it was an effort for us to better understand the stringent safety guidelines and procedures that auto manufacturers go through to achieve the IIHS’s top designations.
Also read: Here are 10 SUVs you can buy with top safety ratings
This is not a completely magnanimous gesture, though. Not coincidentally is the fact that all of Subaru’s models have been named IIHS “Top Safety Picks” for six years running. To qualify as a 2015 Top Safety Pick, says the IIHS, a vehicle must earn Good ratings in the moderate overlap front, side, roof strength and head restraint tests, as well as a Good or Acceptable rating in the small overlap front test.
Hulking remnants of scrap metal are all that remain of these two vehicles.
Brian Harper, Driving
In addition to this, the five Subaru models — Impreza, XV Crosstrek, Forester, Legacy and Outback — featuring the optional EyeSight driver assist technology, have been designated a “Top Safety Pick+.” To qualify for a Top Safety Pick+ designation, a vehicle must meet the Top Safety Pick criteria, plus earn an advanced or superior rating for front crash prevention.
Safety ratings aren’t sexy. They don’t provide the same warm and fuzzy feeling as when shopping for a new vehicle based on looks, horsepower, price or fuel economy. But, after watching a high-speed crash in real time, even if it’s “just a test,” sometimes the “what if” becomes a sobering reminder of what’s really important.
When it comes to crashes, bigger isn’t always better
It’s doubtful anyone would’ve survived this crash.
Brian Harper, Driving
In the research centre’s atrium are the remaining hulks of a crash test performed in 2009 between a 2009 Chevy Malibu and a 1959 Chevy Bel Air. For those who think that bigger is better or “they don’t make ’em like they used to,” look at the results in the video below; the footage has been viewed more than 1.8 million times.
