1959 vs 2009 car crash

[Deleted User] · February 2010

This might be a little off-topic for a strictly hudson blog, but I think its a pretty important clip to watch for those of us who like to get our Hudsons out there and mix it up with everyday traffic, including jaunts on the freeways at 70mph plus. I know I, for one, always believed that "old" cars were built tough as nails, but neverthless, also felt a little uneasy about the lack of safety features in my Hudson, that we now take for granted tooling around in our more modern rides.

If you ever wondered what would happen if you plowed into a glass-and-plastic, modern aero-egg, with your fifty year old "national treasure", this might give you a little food for thought.

Yeah, yeah, I know if the old car was a Hudson, it'd have done much, much better, but I'd just as soon not put mine to the test.

http://presurfer.blogspot.com/2010/01/crash-test-1959-car-vs-2009-car.html

bull_islander · February 2010

wow. incredible the difference in damage to the driver cockpit areas. I wonder where the driver of the 59 would've gone if there was no seatbelt involved...

It's actually kind of quiet on here tonight. Everybody must be watching the hockey game...(even more off topic, lol)

Aaron D. IL · February 2010

That video has been out a little while. One might question some of their methodology. Taking a new car against a 50ish year old car. Who knows if it was bondo underneath metal fatigued, etc. For our own forum they might've gotten different results with a Hudson. Glad they didn't destroy one of those. Seatbelts....sure but they were also crashing a unibody car against a body-on frame Chevy. Older cars were built for structural ridgity new cars have crumple zones to absorb an impact. I call - apples to oranges comparison. Plus I call foul for destroying a historic artifact.

Finally. I'm a survivor of a 1950 Hudson Pacemaker that was rusty with NO seatbelts that crashed head-on with a new full size Ford F-350 4X4. I've heard plenty of stories from others who said a Hudson saved their lives. So I'm posting from personal experience.

[Deleted User] · February 2010

This video has been out for nearly a year. The Impala had an "X"-frame - there is no frame support at all at the front doors! The fact it folded up like it did, really isn't a big surprise.

Lee ODell · February 2010

I believe the Hudson would have fared a little better because of the unibody. But the front end would have sustained the same kind of damage. Newer cars begin their unibody at the front bumper mount whereas Hudson unibody starts at the firewall.

However, if that later model car hit the side of an older car it would be a different outcome.

I witnessed a late model Volvo skid for about 400 feet before hitting the side of a 70's 4r Cad. Put a dent in the side of the cad. Totaled the Volvo. The Vovlo front end was mashed back to the base of the front windshield. The Volvo driver, went by ambulance, to the hospital. The couple in the Cad drove home.

We should not keep from driving our cars because there (might) be an accident. The odds are in our favor we will not.

Have a good day and enjoy your ride. Lee

[Deleted User] · February 2010

Safety makes a new car good as well as reliability. Negatives are they all look like the same shaped jelly beans and have no individual style. Also, forget about working on them yourself.

Coincidently, last night a found a pic of a 59 Caddy Convert I had in the 80's. Now that had style (and value). Yes... I wish I still had that car....

Browniepetersen · February 2010

The comparison is only done for effect. Anyone that thinks that the old iron and engineering technology is better than the new science of building a car is living in a dream world. When Tucker built his car it was far and away the safest car on the road--today it would have looked much like the Chevrolet. If safety, economy, comfort or performance was what we old car folks were after we would not have and enjoy our pride and joy's. I am an old car nut for a lot of reasons that far and away transend the quality of today's cars. What we really need to see is a comparison between today's girls and those of yesteryear--and how well they age. My 75 year old car looks a lot better than I do........And I am a "RARE clean one owner."

By the way, I have a 1960 Chevrolet El Camino....... Now that was a Car!!!! And, like me it is a clean one owner that has never been restored.

Snailslayer · February 2010

I saw that video a few months ago. they chose a 59 because of the era, but it also weighs a similar amount. But I think a head on collision with a 74 Chevy impala would make for a greater debate. These are pre crumple zone cars and a favorite for professional demolition derby drivers. I bet it would be a different story. granted the 74 weighs more but its still the same make and model.

As I get thinking about the safety issue though (old vs new), a few thoughts come to mind. My knowledge and experience is limited so these are general theories of my own. Force = mass x acceration

I think that the odds of serious injury driving a pre crumple zone car are less now then they were in the early 70's. Back then, bigger meant safer. and in some respects thats true. until each car weighs so much, that the forces on your body in a crash become to great to survive. back then, it was solid frame on frame, neither car had give. thats alot of force when cars averaged 5-6000lbs. crumple zones came out in 78 to lessen the force of the land cruisers. now, you are more likely to hit a smaller, lighter unibody car with crumple zones. Id rather be sitting in the 74 impala with a seatbelt when its hits a Corolla Head on. Its the same as if you were sitting in a full size Truck hitting the corolla today. Who is going to win that battle?

With a heavier vehicle, more force will be applied to the smaller vehicle. now its going to hurt, no doubt. but the damage to the corolla is going to be much greater because of the mass of the Impala is 2x as much and with out the crumple zones in the impala, more force will be applied to each vehicle (driver). now if you hit another pre 78 full size car, semi truck or a tree, your body will feel a whole lot of pain. but in the modern age, the chances of hittin one are way less then in 1977.

Of course there is cabin design adn safety glass, and airbags to consider to even the playing field. Id like to see a crash video with a modern full size car or truck vs a compact, and a vintage full versus the same.

My point is, the heavier (and more solid) car in a vehicle on vehicle crash, the better odds you have of coming out on top because of the forces applied. and a full frame full size pre crumple zone car (not necessarily the x frame car) , just might be "safer" or more survivalable than an 09 impala in this example.

What do you think?

RL Chilton · February 2010

volksheime wrote:

I saw that video a few months ago. they chose a 59 because of the era, but it also weighs a similar amount. But I think a head on collision with a 74 Chevy impala would make for a greater debate. These are pre crumple zone cars and a favorite for professional demolition derby drivers. I bet it would be a different story. granted the 74 weighs more but its still the same make and model.

As I get thinking about the safety issue though (old vs new), a few thoughts come to mind. My knowledge and experience is limited so these are general theories of my own. Force = mass x acceration

I think that the odds of serious injury driving a pre crumple zone car are less now then they were in the early 70's. Back then, bigger meant safer. and in some respects thats true. until each car weighs so much, that the forces on your body in a crash become to great to survive. back then, it was solid frame on frame, neither car had give. thats alot of force when cars averaged 5-6000lbs. crumple zones came out in 78 to lessen the force of the land cruisers. now, you are more likely to hit a smaller, lighter unibody car with crumple zones. Id rather be sitting in the 74 impala with a seatbelt when its hits a Corolla Head on. Its the same as if you were sitting in a full size Truck hitting the corolla today. Who is going to win that battle?

With a heavier vehicle, more force will be applied to the smaller vehicle. now its going to hurt, no doubt. but the damage to the corolla is going to be much greater because of the mass of the Impala is 2x as much and with out the crumple zones in the impala, more force will be applied to each vehicle (driver). now if you hit another pre 78 full size car, semi truck or a tree, your body will feel a whole lot of pain. but in the modern age, the chances of hittin one are way less then in 1977.

Of course there is cabin design adn safety glass, and airbags to consider to even the playing field. Id like to see a crash video with a modern full size car or truck vs a compact, and a vintage full versus the same.

My point is, the heavier (and more solid) car in a vehicle on vehicle crash, the better odds you have of coming out on top because of the forces applied. and a full frame full size pre crumple zone car (not necessarily the x frame car) , just might be "safer" or more survivalable than an 09 impala in this example.

What do you think?

Can't say that I disagree with anything you've mentioned, nor with Brownie's take on the matter. To expound on both thoughts, I think yes, pound for pound, as far as possible collision injuries are concerned, I'd rather be in a modern car. Car's are generally safer today than they were 50 years ago, no doubt about it. Headrests, crumple zones, drivetrains designed to go down and out, safety harnesses, airbags, padded dashes are all worthy safety features that I think no one could begrudge.

To give an example of Volksheime's thoughts: there's more than one reason I drive a 6600 lb. Dodge Ram. I had a disagreement with someone recently when they were relishing the great attributes of the modern "smart" car ( I call them the Dumb Car). I'm sure you've seen these glorified go-karts on wheels, with a 4' wheelbase, seats two, cracker-hole of a "car". They were telling me how "safe" they were. My take was more like, "Give me a break". I'd hate to be driving (or riding) in that car if it hit my truck in any fashion, particularly head-on. Their take was, "Oh, no, it simply bounces off of a heavier vehicle, they've done tests on it". I don't buy it, and I'd STILL rather be in my truck than the cracker box. In the truck, I'd be like, "What was that? A deer?" The folks in the tiny car would most likely be in a whole lot worse shape, it's simply physics.

Exactly what was the point of the video? Certainly not to demonstrate that car's are safer in '09 than in '59? If that was indeed the point, then that's absurd. I would certainly HOPE and EXPECT that cars are safer today than they were FIVE DECADES AGO!! I mean, heck the internal combustion engine is only 50 years out of date, if we haven't made progress somewhere, it would be a sad affair altogether.

[Deleted User] · February 2010

Furthur to the comments by volksheime, regarding the equation between mass, + speed = esculated damage, and the reference by Russell as to the safety of the "smart" car, the picture of one of these "smart" cars after it got rearended, and sandwiched between two dumptrucks comes to mind.

This accident apparently occured somewhere near New Orleans.

I doubt the driver of the "smart" car lived to see the picture.

[Deleted User] · February 2010

silverone wrote:

I doubt the driver of the "smart" car lived to see the picture.

That was a Ford SUV.

Still working on putting seat belts in my '40. Don't want any Smart cars bouncing off me.

[Deleted User] · February 2010

Super 7 wrote:

That was a Ford SUV.

Still working on putting seat belts in my '40. Don't want any Smart cars bouncing off me.

You might be right --- it appears "smart" cars have three stud wheels. Whatever that was in the picture looks like it has five.

Note that both dumptrucks were fully loaded -- which would add to the severity of damage potential by a HUGE factor !!

Hudsonrules · February 2010

:)In 1960 I had some one in a '56 Ford car try to drive through the rear of my '53 Hudson Hornet. Towed the Ford away, drove the Hudson away. A couple years later, someone ran a light and hit my '49 Hudson Commodore on the drivers side. They were driving a big Buick with the big bumper guards. I will say my side hurt a few days later. and botyh cars were totaled. However I did drive the Hudson home. The left side suffered heavy damaged. Could not open the left doors. The seat was bent, and winshield cracked. Unfortunatley the Hudson went to thwe big parking lot in the sky. I have seen wrecked Hudson's in junk yards that were heavily damaged. hit by what? Anyway have a safe day and enjoy your Hudson's as the weather improves. Arnie in Nevada.

[Deleted User] · February 2010

silverone wrote:

Note that both dumptrucks were fully loaded -- which would add to the severity of damage potential by a HUGE factor !!

As for that particular car crash the driver did escape I believe with no lasting injuries. The truck hit the right rear leaving the drivers area intact.

For determining the safety of a car there are a number of factors including weight..

Weight advantage:

Taking two cars: 1) my 1940 Super Six at 3100 lbs and a 6200 lb truck hitting head on. One issue is force to the drivers body. Using f=ma where the force is equal in the crash since the truck has twice the mass then my body will receive two times the force. In this case weight makes the truck safer.

Crumple zones advantage:

Crumple zones absorbe the energy from a crash and take the impulse force of a crash and distrubute it over time. For the same crash above if my Hudson had a typical crumple zone it could take the 50ms impulse force and distribute it over 250-500ms. This would lead to the force my body sees being reduced by 5 to 10x. From this it is easy to see that a properly designed crumple zone has more effect on safety than weight.

Cars, minivans, crossovers and trucks, suvs, 1936-1947 Hudsons:

Safety requirements such as crumple zones are much more strict in cars, minivans and crossovers than in trucks and SUVs. When researching my Super Six I did an analysis. In a head on collision it will react much like a truck. With a weight distribution of close to 50/50 during a collision the front will stop while the back end keeps on going. The tendency will be for the car to fold just behind the firewall. The safest place in my car is the rear seat, with the drivers seat being the most at risk.

Weight disadvantage:

In a single truck or SUV crash where it impacts a more massive object the more mass a truck has the more likely it is to fold on the drivers compartment. Cars in general do not have this limitation.

I never did evaluate a stepdown so not sure how it would react.

For me I drive my Super Six only on surface streets and only up to 45mph. My biggest fear is the soccer mom with three screaming kids in the back or the sales guy talking on his cell phone.

[Deleted User] · February 2010

Super 7 you are right on your biggest worry being the other driver. I know I find when I get in my new car I tune out a little. Cars are so easy to drive you can easily get distracted. When I jump in the Hudsons you have to drive them I find I am more engaged in the driving experience. Being alert keeps you out of danger. And like you I prefer to just cruise in my cars. Take my time if I can I take the back roads and just enjoy the experience. But I am always alert for some idiot in new car talking or texting on their phone.

Funniest and scariest thing I saw while driving my Hudson. My brother and I were driving across Canada in my 51 Hornet we were on a divided highway. We come up to a four way intersection where cars can come onto the highway. We slow down and across the highway we see 4 ladies sitting in a huge Caddy maybe a 78. They are all in their eighties at least. They pull out as we are coming up to the four way they do not drive across the intersection to get to our lanes they turn into oncoming traffic in the other lane and gun it. So here is this big white Caddy zooming towards traffic.

I am now parallel with them on the other side of the divided highway. I am honking the horn and my brother has climbed in the back seat and has rolled down the window and is waving madly, one of the ladies in the back sees us and figures out the problem plus they are now rolling towards 3 lanes of oncoming traffic panic in the car. Now the next move was classic the lady driving hits the brakes swerves on the grass divider down into it guns in and comes up the other side and swerves onto the road about a 1/4 mile behind us. Obviously that lady was a moonshiner of old. About a minute later they blast past us and honk the horn as if to say thanks for the assist. Pretty near saw 4 old gals take out a line of traffic. Craziest thing I have ever seen. The fact she never stopped was what floored us.

Snailslayer · February 2010

Super 7, thanks for clearing up the physics math. because the crumple zones lessen force by a factor of 5-10x it really could negate the weight advantage. But does the math still hold entirely true if you hit a non crumple zone (old) car?

Because in a head on, the new car should absorb 2x the force thus pushing the front bumper 2x as far in toward the driver because the old car wouldnt give or have "any" negative accerelation. In my mind it might push enough sheet metal back into the driver compartment to be fatal whereas if it hit another new car the force would be more equally shared.

I never thought about the folding or pinch point in old cars as the drivers seat because of the weight distribution. great point. kinda makes you want to make a little anti crush bar between the posts.

As far as the smart (dumb) cars bouncing off, they may in fact do that. however, Newtons third law is in effect and thats going to be one hell of a whiplash headache. Ive drivin in a couple demolition derbys and getting smucked hard enough to change your direction (bounce off) is still a trip to the Chiro.

I drive VW beetles for fun and a VW bus. and I know its made me a better driver. I have to drive defensively as I would be on the extreme losing end of a crash and as such i am much more aware of my surroundings and other drivers no matter what car I drive. and it helps when the radio doesnt work

great topic

1959 vs 2009 car crash

Comments

Categories

In this Discussion