Jump to content





Sign in to follow this  
ANTAUS

Bronco Sport Nabs Top Pick + Rating on IIHS

Recommended Posts

Very impressive results. Bronco Sport really stands out for Good rated headlamps standard on every trim level. That's not common, only 3 other models in IIHS' "Small SUV" category managed to also achieve that.

 

image.thumb.png.df2c03a740bb1c07bd694d18c1f4a9d5.png

Edited by rperez817

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully the BS and Escape do well in the new side impact test coming soon. IIHS let manufacturers know the specifications in 2018 for the new test. Heavier vehicle (4200lbs) and faster speed. (37mph) vs the 3100and 31mph crash now. Creates 82% more force than the current test. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jasonj80 said:

IIHS let manufacturers know the specifications in 2018 for the new test. Heavier vehicle (4200lbs) and faster speed. (37mph) vs the 3100and 31mph crash now. Creates 82% more force than the current test. 

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSnHknrYgkwKq-3Nt_Jaxv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, akirby said:

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSnHknrYgkwKq-3Nt_Jaxv


100%  that is exactly why we have safer cars. Accidents that were thought to be not survivable 30 years ago people walk from now. Headlights that actually light up the road and systems that are preventing accidents from even happening at all. Always get better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jasonj80 said:

100%  that is exactly why we have safer cars. Accidents that were thought to be not survivable 30 years ago people walk from now. Headlights that actually light up the road and systems that are preventing accidents from even happening at all. Always get better.

 

IIHS and its members have been excellent at updating their crash test and crash avoidance ratings standards frequently to always get better and remain relevant. NHTSA's NCAP program is finally getting upgraded too. NHTSA Announces Coming Upgrades to New Car Assessment Program | NHTSA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a point of diminishing returns where the real world improvement is so statistically small that it isn’t feasible.

 I think we’re either at that point or getting close.  Adding more tests don’t automatically equal real world results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, akirby said:

There is a point of diminishing returns where the real world improvement is so statistically small that it isn’t feasible.

 I think we’re either at that point or getting close.  Adding more tests don’t automatically equal real world results.

 

IIHS tests are based on real world data. The testing protocols are designed using "insurance data on the human and economic losses resulting from owning and operating motor vehicles, especially the ways such losses vary among different kinds of vehicles" from the Highway Loss Data Institute. Test protocols and technical information (iihs.org)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, akirby said:

There is a point of diminishing returns where the real world improvement is so statistically small that it isn’t feasible.

 I think we’re either at that point or getting close.  Adding more tests don’t automatically equal real world results.

 

9 minutes ago, rperez817 said:

 

IIHS tests are based on real world data. The testing protocols are designed using "insurance data on the human and economic losses resulting from owning and operating motor vehicles, especially the ways such losses vary among different kinds of vehicles" from the Highway Loss Data Institute. Test protocols and technical information (iihs.org)

The primary goal of IIHS is to reduce injury and death claims resulting from auto accidents which drive up rates and cut profits to their member companies.  In the long run, it is far better to total out a vehicle after a crash than it is to pay for medical bills.  Thus they look at crash data to figure out where and how most injuries occur and design tests to mimic those types of accidents in a repeatable laboratory setting.  The manufacturers can then design their structures to meet these new standards.  The extra cost of the vehicle gets passed on to the consumer who in turn realizes benefits of lower cost of insurance (comparatively to what it could have been under older standards) and greater sense of safety and security knowing that in the case of an accident, they will likely walk away.

 

I liken this to the progression of aircraft safety.  You can never eliminate the risk of accidents but you can make them safer and eliminate causes that are seeable and preventable.  At some point the incremental gain in safety will not justify the increase in cost, but I think we are still a long ways away from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Insurance data does not measure the exact angle of the collision or the exact speed or the hundred other factors in an accident.

 

Small changes in angle or speed or other factors including occupant size and seat position can have a huge impact on outcomes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, akirby said:

Small changes in angle or speed or other factors including occupant size and seat position can have a huge impact on outcomes.

 

That's why IIHS updates its testing protocols regularly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Flying68 said:

 

The primary goal of IIHS is to reduce injury and death claims resulting from auto accidents which drive up rates and cut profits to their member companies.  In the long run, it is far better to total out a vehicle after a crash than it is to pay for medical bills.  Thus they look at crash data to figure out where and how most injuries occur and design tests to mimic those types of accidents in a repeatable laboratory setting.  The manufacturers can then design their structures to meet these new standards.  The extra cost of the vehicle gets passed on to the consumer who in turn realizes benefits of lower cost of insurance (comparatively to what it could have been under older standards) and greater sense of safety and security knowing that in the case of an accident, they will likely walk away.

 

I liken this to the progression of aircraft safety.  You can never eliminate the risk of accidents but you can make them safer and eliminate causes that are seeable and preventable.  At some point the incremental gain in safety will not justify the increase in cost, but I think we are still a long ways away from that.

 

Good explanation Flying68 sir, thank you. It's a very good thing that the casualty insurance industry does this kind of testing that goes far beyond what the federal government does through NHTSA. And NHTSA benefits from IIHS' work too. The proposed expansion of NHTSA's crash test ratings program was made possible in large part to what IIHS is doing already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIHS prepares to launch new, more challenging side crash test

 

"To achieve a good rating in the test, automakers strengthened side structures and equipped vehicles with head-protecting side airbags ahead of a federal regulation that made them essentially mandatory. Only about 1 in 5 vehicles tested earned good ratings in the beginning. Today, 99 percent of rated vehicles earn a good rating, and the remainder are acceptable. The improvements translated into lives saved. A 2011 study of 10 years' worth of crash data found that a driver of a vehicle rated good is 70 percent less likely to die in a left-side crash than a driver of a vehicle rated poor."

 

"that each additional centimeter of B-pillar intrusion was associated with a 3 percent increase in death risk. Each additional millimeter of rib deflection, one of the measures recorded by the dummies in the test, was associated with a 1 percent increase in death risk."

We still lose around 38,000 people a year to car crashes in the US each year and 2 million are injured in some form. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m in favor of crash testing.  Air bags, seatbelts, front, rear, side and offset crash testing.  All good.

 

What I don’t like is adding more and more variations of things like offset crashes without any real world data that says this exact scenario happened 50 times and there were 20 fatalities, therefore acing this test should save 20 lives per year.  That data just doesn’t exist.   How do we know that adding more offset crash tests will actually reduce fatalities and injuries?  
 

It doesn’t cost the insurance companies much to add new tests but it costs the mfrs a lot especially as the number of tests increase and that ultimately gets passed on to consumers.   It’s really easy to say go do something when you get the benefit but almost none of the costs.  There is no penalty to IIHS if the test doesn’t yield benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, akirby said:

What I don’t like is adding more and more variations of things like offset crashes without any real world data that says this exact scenario happened 50 times and there were 20 fatalities, therefore acing this test should save 20 lives per year.  That data just doesn’t exist.   How do we know that adding more offset crash tests will actually reduce fatalities and injuries?  


The data does exist -  each additional centimeter of B-pillar intrusion was associated with a 3 percent increase in death risk. Each additional millimeter of rib deflection, one of the measures recorded by the dummies in the test, was associated with a 1 percent increase in death risk. So by making the impact with a heavier object, and moving faster you force the manufacture to keep intrusion out of the safety cell. They added the harder test as they are seeing injury's and deaths in certain accidents types. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, jasonj80 said:


100%  that is exactly why we have safer cars. Accidents that were thought to be not survivable 30 years ago people walk from now. Headlights that actually light up the road and systems that are preventing accidents from even happening at all. Always get better.

 

Agree and thank god because people can not drive anymore and are either on prescription drugs or just oblivious to what they ae doing.  The number of people I see staring ahead like a zombie is amazing, driving is like the zombie apocalypse.  The rest of them are apathetic and put no thought or care into how their actions effect anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just a part of the racket IIHS is allowed to run.  They can put in new requirements, and won't be able to say if it does any good until they have 5 years of data.  Of course they'll say, "If one life is spared"...

 

At some point, IIHS has to look at a cost analysis point of view.  Eventually all that'll happen is if your car isn't self driving, then it'll be an IIHS failure grade.  And even then, it'll still be the OEM's fault the crash wasn't survived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, 92merc said:

That's just a part of the racket IIHS is allowed to run.  They can put in new requirements, and won't be able to say if it does any good until they have 5 years of data.  Of course they'll say, "If one life is spared"...

 

At some point, IIHS has to look at a cost analysis point of view.  Eventually all that'll happen is if your car isn't self driving, then it'll be an IIHS failure grade.  And even then, it'll still be the OEM's fault the crash wasn't survived.


Exactly my point.  No liability, no cost, no need to prove it will be effective.  Just the constant threat of not being labeled a “Top Safety Pick”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jasonj80 said:


The data does exist -  each additional centimeter of B-pillar intrusion was associated with a 3 percent increase in death risk. Each additional millimeter of rib deflection, one of the measures recorded by the dummies in the test, was associated with a 1 percent increase in death risk. So by making the impact with a heavier object, and moving faster you force the manufacture to keep intrusion out of the safety cell. They added the harder test as they are seeing injury's and deaths in certain accidents types. 


I get that part.  What doesn’t exist is real world data that said that type of crash happened x times last year with y injuries and z fatalities and this change will reduce that by n%.     Change the angle by a few degrees or the speed and it’s no longer applicable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, akirby said:

Just the constant threat of not being labeled a “Top Safety Pick”.

 

That threat has been very effective getting automakers to take safety more seriously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, akirby said:


I get that part.  What doesn’t exist is real world data that said that type of crash happened x times last year with y injuries and z fatalities and this change will reduce that by n%.     Change the angle by a few degrees or the speed and it’s no longer applicable.


I guess you're right any of these test haven't resulted in any better safety for the vehicles that have been forced to update for better safety ratings, all the work that went into these tests is just a huge conspiracy. It really is just a jobs program to develop something like this IIHS side impact barrier 2.0 development.pdf. It is not rooted in any fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jasonj80 said:


I guess you're right any of these test haven't resulted in any better safety for the vehicles that have been forced to update for better safety ratings, all the work that went into these tests is just a huge conspiracy. It really is just a jobs program to develop something like this IIHS side impact barrier 2.0 development.pdf. It is not rooted in any fact.

 

Ok I have to apologize - I thought you were talking about the new moderate offset test not the new side impact test.  I can see a lot more benefit from improving side impacts and those are much easier to measure in the real world.   However, my point about diminishing returns is still applicable especially when you're talking about changing offset angles and speeds.

 

I'll just drop this by saying while I do believe in crash testing I don't necessarily agree with the way IIHS does it in all cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×