[ptt127]

Originally Posted by BMWrules7

No. They used to focus on those things. But, then they found that a nice even collision is not anywhere near as catastrophic as one that is offset.

This is a huge blow to BMW. BMW focused on finding a way to give nearly all of the electronic gizmos available on the 7 and the 5 to the
3. Worse, BMW shaved away structural weight in the name of Eco pro and other nonsense.

Now, while it is true your little 4 banger beats the old model's 6, and it's true that the new model goes from 0 to 60 a tad faster, it is equally true that there was a hidden compromise and that was the safety of the BMW occupants.

At first I thought you were at least partly joking, but apparently not. Basically you are implying that by taking weight out of the F30 structure, they have made it less safe than the E90. To support this view you are using the results of a test for which no data exists for the E90, because it hasn't been tested (and probably never will be). Tell me again how you know that the E90 would perform better in this test and therefore is more safe than the F30?

If you look at the tests for which there is data for both models, you'll see that they both scored good in all measures on the front moderate overlap test, they both scored good overall for side impact but while the F30 has an acceptable for torso, the E90 has an acceptable for both torso and pelvis/leg, with all other measures being good for both. In roof strength, the F30 is rated good and the E90 acceptable. I hope they publish the photos/videos from those other tests so that we can compare.

Strength to weight ratio is constantly improving generation to generation for all makes, due to improved design and materials (greater use of high strength steel). Meanwhile, the IIHS keeps coming out with new tests because if every car aces all the current tests and they just call it a day, that doesn't challenge manufacturers to do better and ultimately move safety forward. It's fine for them to do this and I'm sure these manufacturers will respond, but your post is awfully alarmist for what actually happened. Note that while injuries to the left foot, ankle and lower leg were likely and the right leg possible, the risk of significant injuries to other body areas was low.

[conradb]

At least I'll die in style.

[clarence]

Originally Posted by Taipei-TT

You can be sure that the new A4 and C, when they are released, will earn a "Good" rating.

The next gen C-class probably won't cos it's already too far down the line to change anything, assuming they didn't take this test in consideration during the development process, which started not long after the F30.

[phillye30fanboy]

in another video they show how the lincoln's steering wheel airbag and side curtain barely deployed in the right areas and the dummies head was totally unprotected but the BMW in this case did incredible in protecting the drivers head from the accident. weel done, honestly.

Originally Posted by conradb

At least I'll die in style.

hahaahahahhahahha, thats too funny holy shit.

[mapezzul]

Official BMW response to the new testing results:

Overall, BMW is pleased with the performance of its Top Safety Pick-winning 3 Series Sedan in the new IIHS small overlap 40mph frontal crash test.

The new test, described by the IIHS President as “severe,” was performed on eleven segment-similar vehicles, and the substantial damage inflicted on the driver’s side of each vehicle is evidence of the test’s unusually violent nature.

Active and passive elements of BMW’s Integrated Safety System successfully shielded the crash test dummy from life-threatening injuries. BMW values the research of the IIHS, and will continue to develop our comprehensive safety engineering philosophy comprised of equal elements for accident avoidance, accident survivability, and post-crash assistance.

Source

[Imola.ZHP]

I saw this on the news yesterday morning and I think its great!

Only good can come from these new tests

[ptt127]

Originally Posted by mapezzul

Official BMW response to the new testing results:



Source

Good info. And the video in that link discusses BMW's real world accident research that was dismissed earlier in the thread...

[johnbmw6]

Originally Posted by whoever

I'm serious considering going back to Honda and get a manual Accord, assuming it's similar to Accura. Just waiting for more testing coming out.

Why?, do you crash cars often?.

[HighlandPete]

Wow, this topic has moved on since yesterday. Seems to be some very alarmist views against BMW, considering this impact test is not part of the industry standard test regime.

I'm all for moving on, but when we have a test like this put in the melting pot, there will always be a wide range of results, but does it mean a car is less safe, in the way we appear to see panic here.

I've spent much of my career in the safety business and nothing is that straight forward when we first look at new test results. BTW, I see nothing in the NCAP roadplan that particularly indicates this type of test was on the horizon. I'll research that a bit more.

I must come back on this thread when I've thought it through a bit more.

But I pose a "food for thought" comment. How many car users ever think how their wheel size choice will impact (excuse the pun) on the type of test you are looking at in the videos. I suggest we think seriously about going back to the smallest rims and having more rubber. Also what about engine choice and how that affects any corner impact, weight/mass, etc.

Yes, user choices and options (on any particular model) could make a difference to the safety of their car, there are so many variables.

HighlandPete

[Touring]

The problem here I think is that Volvo performed well on this test, and BMW did not.

Maybe BMW are focusing too much on modern line, M-edition and other marketing issues, while Volvo was spending time engineering a safe car for their costumers, performing better safety-wise than just passing the tests.

[bradleyland]

Some of the responses here crack me up.

ZOMG THE BMW DIDN'T COME OUT ON TOP SO THERE'S SOME KIND OF VAST CONSPIRACY AT BMW TO PUT COSTS FIRST AND SAFETY SECOND!! ACURA MUST HAVE GOTTEN LUCKY BECAUSE THEY SUCK, AND OH YEAH... VOLVOS ARE UGLY, SO NAAAAAAAH!

Get some perspective, folks. This is a new test. Auto-makers (with a few exceptions) design for the tests. Kudos to Volvo and Acura (TL) for their strong performance. This isn't a contest. It's a crash test. You don't need to cry yourself to sleep because a Volvo "beat" your BMW in some test. Get a grip!

The IIHS added this test because:

1) They've seen an increase in this type of accident.

2) They know that auto-makers will prioritize designs that pass tests.

Neither of these are bad things. The fact remains that just about any car you buy today is safer than the car you could buy 10 years ago. The IIHS is doing the right thing by adapting their tests to insurance claim data. Outside of accident reports, that's the most direct method of assessing accident trends. If this test stays in, expect BMW to make adjustments. It's as simple as that.

The car you bought doesn't have to be "the best" in every category imaginable. Take a deep breath. Go outside. Take a drive in your car. Everything is going to be OK.

[vase330]

Originally Posted by Prince_of_Persia

There you go, now BMW has an ugly looking front hood for safety reasons during an accident and they didnt even get a good score here.

That ugly hood was made like that to improve the score on the European pedestrian crash tests. Basically its raked like that so it scoops the pedestrians on impact. Fact is the tests are kind of realistic when you imagine avoidance maneuvers. Not many accidents are head on, most are offset by drivers attempts to avoid the collision. Now we know what the plastic fenders do for BMW which is nothing. Personally I hate that they are so prone to cracking on the E9X. Note the E9X M3 did not use plastic in the fenders? Now they will go back and fix this for next year's model and you bet the M3\4 will be better still. Watch for a $1500 price hike on existing models next year.

[vase330]

Originally Posted by mapezzul

Official BMW response to the new testing results:



Source

Doesn't matter we the consumer don't care what they think and their marketing hype. Shut up and go fix the damn designs.

[WJGreer]

Originally Posted by Touring

The problem here I think is that Volvo performed well on this test, and BMW did not.

This is what I'm saying.

Whatever this test was, new or old, proven or unproven, legitimate or not - there were winners and losers, and BMW was one of the losers.

[DrivenByE30]

Originally Posted by BMWrules7

First, G-bus, I have been buying BMW's (only) since 1996. And, I haven't looked back. So, I don't care about other car companies.

Next, this new test can't be a surprise. I am sure it was announced far in advance to the car companies.

But, BMW made the decision to move forward with the F30 even though it knew or had good reason to know the F30 would be marginal.

BMW could have stopped the presses, delayed the marketing and redesign the f30 to make it safer.

Instead, BMW chose the corporate low road and decided your life was not worth the effort.

Of course BMW could quickly develop a finite element analysis model that would have clearly shown the f30 would not do well in this test. It is not necessary to crash a car to determine how a car will perform. It is a good test. But, there are other ways (such as finite element analysis) to show how the car will perform without having actually crash the car.

But, BMW said no. They chose profit over safety and even a black eye.

Shame on you BMW.

Sounds to me you are the type of person who's always so eager to throw the first rock...

A lot of things you said, you make it sound like it was very simple and it was so predictable...

It's always easy to assume after the facts...


From my point of view, this is a first shot that is bringing attentions to everyone and so things will be worked on from here on...

I would say that practically all of those cars were not design to incorporates means to protect from this specific scenario.

Only the Volvo was properly equiped/designed. Everyone else was a luck of the draw and circumstance. Regarding the BMW, If it wasn't for the wheel being stuck there, things would have been much better.

The F30 is still a very good Modern car (with all the compromises that goes with it)

[Touring]

Originally Posted by conradb

At least I'll die in style.

LOL :-)

[tuco44]

Originally Posted by whoever

I'm serious considering going back to Honda and get a manual Accord, assuming it's similar to Accura. Just waiting for more testing coming out.

You should just do that.........

[antzcrashing]

Originally Posted by BMWrules7

No. They used to focus on those things. But, then they found that a nice even collision is not anywhere near as catastrophic as one that is offset.

This is a huge blow to BMW. BMW focused on finding a way to give nearly all of the electronic gizmos available on the 7 and the 5 to the
3. Worse, BMW shaved away structural weight in the name of Eco pro and other nonsense.

Now, while it is true your little 4 banger beats the old model's 6, and it's true that the new model goes from 0 to 60 a tad faster, it is equally true that there was a hidden compromise and that was the safety of the BMW occupants.

All you 3 series owners that bought this car before the offset tests were actually performed have been duped! You probably never even asked about safety because BMW goes to great lengths to tout the 3 series as one of the safest cars on earth. But it is not and objective tests prove it is not even close to the safest car in its class.

Look at the intrusion in these tests. It is horrible!!! If I were owner of a 3 series I would be pissed! The fact that this is a new test does not impress me. It only goes to show that BMW makes cars to pass particular set of tests. BMW should worry about the real world.

Driving while texting just got a lot more lethal thanks to BMW.

over-reaction. Look at it this way, the majority of tested cars were marginal, few were good, and few were poor. BMW was average, not failing as the test would like us to believe.

[robertusa32]

Certainly BMW engineers should and will address the new crash test result. But please note the following:
1) Unlike most manufacturers who only focus with varying degrees of interest in passive safety - what happens if the vehicle is involved in a collision? - BMW targets active safety. Brake drying, brake assist, brake stand-by, bigger, bolder braking systems, 50-50 weight distribution all contribute to avoiding the impact.
2) As for passive safety, BMW looks at all 360 degrees of potential crash intersection and attempts to design a vehicle with the best all around passive safety. Most companies engineer to pass the limited tests and the known angle or angles of impact employed by testing agencies.
Again, BMW should learn from the rsults of this test. But, to conclude that the overall safety is less than another brand, such as Volvo, because of this one result, is to misunderstand everything BMW does to avoid such incidents and everythimg the brand does to survive all potential areas of impact around the full circumference of the vehicle.

Respectfully Submitted.

[WJGreer]

Originally Posted by robertusa32

But, to conclude that the overall safety is less than another brand, such as Volvo, because of this one result, is to misunderstand everything BMW does

Good post, and perhaps. However, Volvo accomplishing the highest rating in this test was a surprise to no one, while I think we all were a little surprised by BMW's result.

My position is not that this test changes the overall safety situation for BMW - it's only one test and too soon to tell, as you and others have said. I do think that this is a test that Volvo passed and BMW didn't, which, if you are the head of the BMW safety engineering group, is not a good thing.

[krusty]

Originally Posted by BMWrules7

It only goes to show that BMW makes cars to pass particular set of tests.

Not only BMW, but most other manufacturer's as well. They were placing the shock absorbing crumple bars at the front middle, because the tests were testing at the front middle. Now they will have to re-design.

The other issue here is how little space there is between the front wheel and the passenger cell on some of these cars. And can you imagine on a small hatchback!???? The wheel would push back right into the passenger.

Look at the VW CC video -- the car that scores so badly:



... the passenger cell is VERY close to the front wheel. No wonder it does so badly.

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by krusty

Not only BMW, but most other manufacturer's as well. They were placing the shock absorbing crumple bars at the front middle, because the tests were testing at the front middle. Now they will have to re-design.

They are all working with the same testing scheme, so bound to focus on the same areas, driven for best ratings. Any new test and that becomes a focus, as you indicate. That is how it works, whether we like it or not.

Don't forget the current Euro NCAP frontal impact test is a 40% offset, in its time, arrived at looking at accident statistics. So now we move on, based on revised statistics (at least another set of accident statistics) and so will the 'steer' of manufacturers.

Looking under the surface, it is clear even organizations like Euro NCAP have concerns on how the manufacturers are testing to get top results in the NCAP tests, and how it can draw attention away from other areas of safety. But to be fair, that is always the way when specific test standards are the focus, often too simplistic.

Euro NCAP recognises that there are limitations to the current testing, one area of concern is how a real car to car collision will end in practice. Get our heads around that one, what and how we hit it, the affect on occupants and on the impacted vehicle and its occupants. Imagine how extensive any testing would have to be to have any significant meaning. Let alone build the car that copes with all the variables.

Compatibility between dissimilar vehicles is not addressed in the current frontal test. Elementary stuff in reality, so we still have a long way to go with passive safety. Even while car companies are looking more at active safety and accident avoidance systems, which in reality will likely do more to cope with all the variables, than trying to make the all encompassing safety cell.

HighlandPete