ZOMGXB

ANOTHER ABSURDLY LONG POST FROM ZOMGXB! D:

Hey, gang. I found something interesting on video.google.com looking for the video of Randode's Why-Even-Bother-Putting-Wheels-On-It-If-You're-Going-To-Lower-It-That-Much xB.

I'm GUESSING everyone here has heard about the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety not-so-awesome evaluation of minicars. Well, we've all seen the snippets on the news, but I happened to run across the entire thing on video. It's presented a lot more objectively than it was on the news, but then again it's kind of scary.

A few disclaimers beforehand:

1) I don’t know why, but the frontal impact test of the xB is not shown. This is disappointing, since the xB did very well in this test. Static images of the result can be found at http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=590

2) Inexplicably, the xA is not tested at all. This is also disappointing, since the xA comes with standard Toyota side airbags and would presumably have done way way better. The Institute is a great force for change in the auto safety world, but they're also REALLY ANNOYING in that they seem to select cars totally at random. Like how they didn't test the xB until it was discontinued.

3) As I've said before, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety conducts an extremely demanding test that is much more severe than government-regulated tests done by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:

- the NHTSA crashes a 24" tall, 3015-pound deformable barrier into the test car. The IIHS uses a 3,300-pound, curved barrier with a protruding "bumper," representative of large SUVs or pickups
- the NHTSA uses dummies representing average-sized men. The IIHS uses two 5' tall, 110-pound dummies to represent small women or a 12-year-old child. (I'm assuming it's a small woman driving and a child riding in the backseat, though if it's the other way around that could explain a lot about why this accident is happening in the first place )
- the NHTSA crashes at 38.5 mph, as opposed to the institute, which does it at 31 mph.

In other words, the IIHS is testing for worst-case scenario: a small driver (who is more likely to be injured in this type of crash) and a huge striking vehicle nailing it square in the side. They reduced the speed of the test because, I assume, anything faster would plow right through any car on the road, and that would kill their funding. If you are 6'2" and cringing at the part where the dummy's head bounces off the hood of the striking vehicle, keep in mind that it would probably be your shoulder and not your face. And that you ran a red light in front of a Silverado.

EVERYONE should keep in mind that they are no safer in /any/ vehicle without side airbags, including all but the tallest SUVs. A series of small SUV tests done in 2003 trended exactly the same way. There have been very few of these tests done, however, so the minicar class comes out looking bad.

In a nutshell: we all know people who've been chick-slapped off the road by passenger vans and walked away from the crash, so take this with a grain of salt; unless some r-tard in a Yukon plows into you at-speed, you can expect much more favorable results in real-life collisions. Let's put it this way: I've studied consumer vehicle safety for years, and I'm not selling MINE anytime soon. IT'S MINE, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT!

Still, this might change some people's decision to own the car, but what the hell: I'm a reporter. I report.

Here's the link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...232&q=scion+xb

Watch out for the advertisement at 2:06 or so; it's quite a bit louder than the rest, and it scared the bejesus out of me.

Ours starts at 7:21, but it's worth it to watch the whole thing. I highly recommend watching the Yaris side test at about 2:56, because it's kind of funny to see the "driver" disappear into what appears to be the passenger footwell. Funny in the sort of "laughing to keep from crying" kind of way, anyhow. Also, the Fit's incorrectly-deploying-airbag defect (4:30) is interesting to watch, and a good visual aide if you know any of those annoying morons who claim that airbags are a ploy by the government to kill us blah blah blah blah blah.

On a more positive note, I am happy to report that, yes: seeing a Mini Cooper plow into a brick wall at 40 MPH is just as satisfying as you would imagine. :D

Sorry to keep bringing this issue up, but I ran out of money for modding so now I'm posting Wheee!

Thoughts?

Max

Good find! You get a gold star!

Man that Aveo got demolished on front impact.

iheartzombies

iTrader: (1)

Man that's scary!

How come they didn't who the head on collision for the xB.

I pray I never get hit in the side, ouch.

xA_Factor

I'm so glad I got the side airbags and air curtains on the Egg!

What was scary about the Aveo was that in the frontal offset crash there was some deformation of the safety-cage....not good, I would think.

midtowndesi

damn dude - did u see the driver side mirror fly off during the side impact test? it stayed in a single place just twirling after it was knocked off the vehicle - it looks like it was just floating and rotating in mid air! creepyy!@#!@#
- sh00k

xxINKxx

i feel ya...i slid into a pole at 70mph and hit directly in my drivers side door in my 06' mitubishi evolution ix....and the evo got poor side impact ratings just like the xb...my car looked just like that xb and i got the same injuries as they described except for the head injuries (cracked ribs, lacerated spleen, internal bleeding, jacked up pelvis)

it wasnt fun at all...more cars need side curtain airbags

iheartzombies

iTrader: (1)

You had an evo ix ?!?!



HUGE evo fan right here.

stew32

Ouch! The xB gets nailed right in the doors only. If it'd been offset a little more to include in front or back of the doors, it'd probably would've done a little better? I'm also thinking that full speed T bone side impacts are the exception rather than the norm. Otherwise side airbags would be required and cars would have 360 degree bumpers. Still, I wasn't happy having to choose between side airbags and an xB.

ZOMGXB

you bring up a couple of interesting points.

a) it gets hit in the doors only. the iihs is unique for using a curved crash sled, so the full weight of the impact is absorbed by the b-pillar. that's why the roof distends - the impact totally misses the a and c pillars, so the entire weight of the car is born by just one small section of the safety cage.

you're absolutely right about the front and back of the doors - the government's crash test DOES include those portions, and the xB does markedly better, scoring 3 and 4 stars in side impact testing. http://safercar.gov/NCAP/Cars/3725.html

b) full-speed t-bone collisions, at least those that hit the victim vehicle exactly squarely in the side, are much rarer than head-on collisions. still, they do happen and people do die, and it is avoidable at a reasonable cost.

the iihs test is truly a worst-case scenario - the most at-risk driver being hit in just the right way by the worst kind of vehicle.

the insurance institute's feeling is, if people are at risk AT ALL, that's unacceptable. frankly, i feel the same way - my feeling is, if they can put side airbags in the yaris and the xA and keep them under $13K, why they hell aren't they in the xB? i was annoyed about having to pick between the xB and side airbags, too.

On that note, I read somewhere that Toyota has plans to put side airbags in all their vehicles by the 2009 model year. (And after these tests, I would not be surprised at ALL if they suddenly showed up in the '08 xB.) I don't have the source handy, but I read somewhere the government is thinking of making side airbags standard by 2010.

it's big insurance companies pushing for this. think about it - it's in allstate's best interest to make sure you DON'T shatter your pelvis, since they're the ones picking up the $95,000 hospital bill.


in other news, your hometown of Arlington, Virginia is also the location of the IIHS' head office I went to the address listed on their website once hoping to get a tour of the facility (since they don't answer their damn phones), but their office was like on the seventh floor and I'm pretty sure that's NOT where they're testing cars

PEACE! don't run them red lights

Max

At least xB dummy didn't smack his head on the bumper.

And yeah, some of those super high-speed shots with the mirrors and glass flying around are amazing.

ZOMGXB

Aw, shucks!

Funny you mention that...in the frontal test, on the rebound, the dummy whacks the back of his head on the roof AND the b-pillar...that's why I wanted to see it. Don't worry, the head accelerations from those impacts were low...almost no risk of injury, but I can't say I'm surprised the dummy went flying around like a ping-pong ball in a blender. In the pics I've seen, the back of the car gets like three feet off the ground.

I will say that the high-speed images are amaaaazzziinnggg. o_0 I like how the driver's seat jumps its track and bounces off the passenger seat, and they both move before the rest of the car does. That image does not bode well for my iPod, which lives between the e-Brake handle and the passenger seat.

Next you'll see on the IIHS site...
"The level of seat distension suggests a high risk of injury to personal electronic devices, and a severe likelihood of decrease in the driver's 'cool factor'."

cherryBox

makes me want to figure out how to retrofit side bags from an xA...

xA_Factor

The side airbags and side air curtains are a $650 option on the xA. My 5-speed with that option was close to $14k....$13990, I believe. Just an FYI.

I do find it a bit odd that side bags and curtains aren't an option on the Box.

ZOMGXB

My dealer told me they were standard on the xA. I guess that at Schaumburg Toyota, "standard" means "all the cars we have right now have it." *********. Thanks for the info. I'd have shelled out two extra payments for that...

Taller-profile vehicles usually don't get them. =6 The reasoning is that unless a real tall vehicle hits you, you don't need them. Then again, I'm pretty sure we can all name a vehicle whose roof is level with our roof.

xxINKxx

yes....side impacts are SCARY...i feel even more scared in my lil box'

Befor:


After: (stripped most of my parts hehe)

C64C64

wow that car needs a little body work!

RATMACHINE

The xB doesn't have side air bags because of the design of the vehicle. They couldn't put them in it with the roof being so high...I would imagine the new box will have less room between your head and the roof so that we can have side bags in the next one.

ZOMGXB

Ahhhhmmm not so much. Side airbags can be mounted in the roof, the B-pillar, or even the seat. There are many SUVs and minivans with just as much headroom that do have side airbags. Sorry.

If they decided not to put side airbags in, it was just a cost decision. Or, like I said, under the thinking that a taller-profile vehicle doesn't NEED them, since most cars are going to hit the door and not go higher. Most cars' hoods don't go over the tops of our doors...it's only the really big ones we need to worry about.

If we DO get side airbags in the next one, I have a feeling it will be more about the media circus that resulted from these tests, and not the roof height.

Sorry!

RATMACHINE

The info I'm giving is straight from the trainers and reps for Toyota...sooo, believe what you will. I asked them directly why the vehicle didn't have the side bags. I work for a "stealership" and see these people all the time. Besides that, if Toyota could have put them in they would....it's optional in the other 2 Scions....optional in car terms means profit!! It certainly doesn't cost them anything........