RDX gets "marginal" safety rating...don't flip out!
07-01-2011, 09:48 AM
#1
StayAtHomeDad
Thread Starter
RDX gets "marginal" safety rating...don't flip out!
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/06/29/i...-rdx-faulters/
IIHS gave the RDX an overall score of "Marginal" after the Acura roof was found to only be able to withstand 2.9 times the overall weight of the vehicle.
07-01-2011, 11:17 AM
#2
mrgold35
I'm not sure what this test is designed to do?
“The roof test is measured by pressing a metal plate into a corner of the roof at a constant rate. The pressure continues to build until five inches of crush is achieved."
I did not know rollover accidents occur in this slow methodical way. I'll make sure if I'm driving a EX35 and about to get in an accident; I will try and roll the vehicle on its side to let the pressure continue to build until five inches of crush is achieved.
“The roof test is measured by pressing a metal plate into a corner of the roof at a constant rate. The pressure continues to build until five inches of crush is achieved."
I did not know rollover accidents occur in this slow methodical way. I'll make sure if I'm driving a EX35 and about to get in an accident; I will try and roll the vehicle on its side to let the pressure continue to build until five inches of crush is achieved.
07-01-2011, 11:43 AM
#3
StayAtHomeDad
Thread Starter
I don't understand that either....the same way that hitting a wall at 40mph...but they are all measured equally, so it gives you an idea of how well the cars will do comparably in the same situation.
07-01-2011, 12:52 PM
#4
1st Gear
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure what this test is designed to do?
“The roof test is measured by pressing a metal plate into a corner of the roof at a constant rate. The pressure continues to build until five inches of crush is achieved."
I did not know rollover accidents occur in this slow methodical way. I'll make sure if I'm driving a EX35 and about to get in an accident; I will try and roll the vehicle on its side to let the pressure continue to build until five inches of crush is achieved.
“The roof test is measured by pressing a metal plate into a corner of the roof at a constant rate. The pressure continues to build until five inches of crush is achieved."
I did not know rollover accidents occur in this slow methodical way. I'll make sure if I'm driving a EX35 and about to get in an accident; I will try and roll the vehicle on its side to let the pressure continue to build until five inches of crush is achieved.
07-01-2011, 04:14 PM
#5
mrgold35
I wonder if the suspensions of the two vehicles could have influence the results (tires, rims, shocks/struts, springs, multilink, a-arms, etc…). Maybe the RDX stiffer suspension did not have the slack like the EX35 and the hydraulic press need less pressure to cause the damage. Kind of like trying to crush something on a trampoline (EX35) compared to on concrete (RDX). I know, extreme example.
I would believe the results more if they dropped both vehicles at the same height in the same location and compared the damage.
07-01-2011, 04:48 PM
#6
StayAtHomeDad
Thread Starter
If I understand the test correctly, what they do is that they start putting pressure and stop when it has deformed 5", then they measure what that force was and compare it to the weight of the vehicle.
Whatever you think about the test, getting a "marginal" is pretty bad.
Whatever you think about the test, getting a "marginal" is pretty bad.
07-02-2011, 01:09 AM
#7
Copy cat shinobi
C'mon must be Berkley engineering leading the way on this one!
Haha, well i wont be suprised now when the insurance to goes up on cuv/ suv markets. R'Tarded.... Anyway the fact I gathered is the test is busted. The weight of the vehicle would most likely be spread out across the entire a pillar (and or b pillar) and front upper frame brace do to engine weight if the vehicle came to rest on it's roof 55/45 weight distro of a race car, but this is morelikely the case 60/40
The only way this is plausible is if the vehicle came to rest on a boulder placed directly on the a pillars while on a incline.
Mr Gold maybe right, the suspension will have absorbed more force if it is plush, rigid suspension will give less and crush with less force. But i think the bottomed out suspension would act the same as a rigid, so there would be differences but not much. I would have thought they would take the time to nullify any suspension interaction, iirc I don't remember any effort to do that. Correct me please.
They should really retest these vehicles, if that is the case. Thx for bring this to light WRESTREPO! Really this test is, imnsho again, a caveman pushing paper for numbers to submit to the gov't in the likely hood a car actually rolled over and landed on or in this testing machine and got smashed when the worker pressed the red button. Other than that this is a highly unlikely senerio, simply because weight will transfer forward to COG.
Haha, well i wont be suprised now when the insurance to goes up on cuv/ suv markets. R'Tarded.... Anyway the fact I gathered is the test is busted. The weight of the vehicle would most likely be spread out across the entire a pillar (and or b pillar) and front upper frame brace do to engine weight if the vehicle came to rest on it's roof 55/45 weight distro of a race car, but this is morelikely the case 60/40
The only way this is plausible is if the vehicle came to rest on a boulder placed directly on the a pillars while on a incline.
Mr Gold maybe right, the suspension will have absorbed more force if it is plush, rigid suspension will give less and crush with less force. But i think the bottomed out suspension would act the same as a rigid, so there would be differences but not much. I would have thought they would take the time to nullify any suspension interaction, iirc I don't remember any effort to do that. Correct me please.
They should really retest these vehicles, if that is the case. Thx for bring this to light WRESTREPO! Really this test is, imnsho again, a caveman pushing paper for numbers to submit to the gov't in the likely hood a car actually rolled over and landed on or in this testing machine and got smashed when the worker pressed the red button. Other than that this is a highly unlikely senerio, simply because weight will transfer forward to COG.
Last edited by Kaze66218; 07-02-2011 at 01:19 AM.
Trending Topics
07-02-2011, 07:48 AM
#8
StayAtHomeDad
Thread Starter
I don't think that you need to run out and sell the RDX, nor do I think that you should be completely dismissive of the test.
I don't think that a more plausible scenario is a car doing a 180 up in the air and landing flat like a pancake on it's roof, I think that landing on it's side is a more likely outcome of a rollover. I don't think that the test is perfect either, but what I think we need to take from this is that the vehicle, when evaluated on the IIHS scale get a marginal rating, while still achieving/meeting the federal standards.
Looking at the way the test is performed, I don't think that the suspension plays a role (relevant one) in it. They are measuring how much force they need to apply to deform the roof a certain amount, I think that they would either adjust the numbers to take in consideration the suspension, or lock it all together to not let it travel at all...the IIHS people are not that dumb....
More about the testing....
I don't think that a more plausible scenario is a car doing a 180 up in the air and landing flat like a pancake on it's roof, I think that landing on it's side is a more likely outcome of a rollover. I don't think that the test is perfect either, but what I think we need to take from this is that the vehicle, when evaluated on the IIHS scale get a marginal rating, while still achieving/meeting the federal standards.
Looking at the way the test is performed, I don't think that the suspension plays a role (relevant one) in it. They are measuring how much force they need to apply to deform the roof a certain amount, I think that they would either adjust the numbers to take in consideration the suspension, or lock it all together to not let it travel at all...the IIHS people are not that dumb....
More about the testing....
Procedures for rating roof strength
More than 10,000 people a year are killed in rollovers. The best way to prevent the deaths is to keep vehicles from rolling over in the first place. Electronic stability control is significantly reducing rollovers, especially fatal single-vehicle ones. When vehicles do roll, side curtain airbags help protect the people inside, and belt use is essential. However, for these safety technologies to be most effective, the roof must be able to maintain the occupant survival space when it hits the ground during a rollover. Stronger roofs crush less, reducing the risk that people will be injured by contact with the roof itself. Stronger roofs also can prevent occupants, especially those who aren't using safety belts, from being ejected through windows, windshields, or doors that have broken or opened because the roof has deformed.
In the Institute's roof strength test, a metal plate is pushed against 1 side of a roof at a constant speed. To earn a good rating, the roof must withstand a force of 4 times the vehicle's weight before reaching 5 inches of crush. This is called a strength-to-weight ratio. For an acceptable rating, the minimum required strength-to-weight ratio is 3.25. A marginal rating value is 2.5. Anything lower than that is poor.
The Institute's test method is the same one that has been used for testing under the federal roof strength regulation since 1973, but with much higher requirements. Vehicles only need a strength-to-weight ratio of 1.5 to meet the federal regulation. While the actual roof strengths of vehicles may surpass this minimum level by a large amount, this information has not been available to consumers. Institute research has found that a vehicle with a roof strength-to-weight ratio of 4.0 has an estimated 50 percent reduction in the risk of serious and fatal injury in single-vehicle rollover crashes compared with the minimum level of 1.5.
More than 10,000 people a year are killed in rollovers. The best way to prevent the deaths is to keep vehicles from rolling over in the first place. Electronic stability control is significantly reducing rollovers, especially fatal single-vehicle ones. When vehicles do roll, side curtain airbags help protect the people inside, and belt use is essential. However, for these safety technologies to be most effective, the roof must be able to maintain the occupant survival space when it hits the ground during a rollover. Stronger roofs crush less, reducing the risk that people will be injured by contact with the roof itself. Stronger roofs also can prevent occupants, especially those who aren't using safety belts, from being ejected through windows, windshields, or doors that have broken or opened because the roof has deformed.
In the Institute's roof strength test, a metal plate is pushed against 1 side of a roof at a constant speed. To earn a good rating, the roof must withstand a force of 4 times the vehicle's weight before reaching 5 inches of crush. This is called a strength-to-weight ratio. For an acceptable rating, the minimum required strength-to-weight ratio is 3.25. A marginal rating value is 2.5. Anything lower than that is poor.
The Institute's test method is the same one that has been used for testing under the federal roof strength regulation since 1973, but with much higher requirements. Vehicles only need a strength-to-weight ratio of 1.5 to meet the federal regulation. While the actual roof strengths of vehicles may surpass this minimum level by a large amount, this information has not been available to consumers. Institute research has found that a vehicle with a roof strength-to-weight ratio of 4.0 has an estimated 50 percent reduction in the risk of serious and fatal injury in single-vehicle rollover crashes compared with the minimum level of 1.5.
07-02-2011, 07:46 PM
#10
Safety Car
Here's an actual RDX rollover. While the roof may not meet the newest weight bearing standard, it held up quite well in this case.
(It was hit low in the opposite side rear door by a Honda Accord.)
(It was hit low in the opposite side rear door by a Honda Accord.)
Last edited by XLR8R; 07-02-2011 at 07:59 PM.
07-02-2011, 08:59 PM
#11
StayAtHomeDad
Thread Starter
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJF06ZP7U2s[/URL]
While I am not suggesting that the RDX is a Le Mans racer, all I am saying is that accidents can happen....even to the best of us.
07-04-2011, 03:00 AM
#12
Copy cat shinobi
Well you'd be pretty retarded to flip over or rollover, whatever way you want; but then land a vehicle onto this machine that crushes a single "a-pillar" to simulate the roll over stress. Because that is just one of very few ways to singularly crush the a-pillar. That test would not acurrately simulate a roll over, but it would simulate one of these:
Cliff diving tandem with the RDX. Next way, is submission to this machine. Or intentionally rolling it over and having it come to rest on a slight incline with a giant boulder under the pillar. I am not sure if there are possibly any other way(s) besides monster trucks... "Make something idiot proof, they'll eventually make a better idiot."
Clearly should the RDX land on it's roof, once the impact energy is dissipated, will rest on it's center of gravity. Which the frame, front supports, and a-pillars structures will spread out the weight of the vehicle. Not just the a-frame Well, again, that is if the last roll put it on it's roof.
However i do understand, the point is this machine has been measuring a single a- pillars strength on all models past and present. But imo the test is flawed, then as you said per title don't freak out! I'm not, however clearly the RDX survives in this case. I imagine another lux of comparable or higher model will have similar "real world" results.
Over 70 years of idiots, I think the auto industries have gotten it down by now.
Cliff diving tandem with the RDX. Next way, is submission to this machine. Or intentionally rolling it over and having it come to rest on a slight incline with a giant boulder under the pillar. I am not sure if there are possibly any other way(s) besides monster trucks... "Make something idiot proof, they'll eventually make a better idiot."
Clearly should the RDX land on it's roof, once the impact energy is dissipated, will rest on it's center of gravity. Which the frame, front supports, and a-pillars structures will spread out the weight of the vehicle. Not just the a-frame Well, again, that is if the last roll put it on it's roof.
However i do understand, the point is this machine has been measuring a single a- pillars strength on all models past and present. But imo the test is flawed, then as you said per title don't freak out! I'm not, however clearly the RDX survives in this case. I imagine another lux of comparable or higher model will have similar "real world" results.
Over 70 years of idiots, I think the auto industries have gotten it down by now.
07-04-2011, 09:36 AM
#13
StayAtHomeDad
Thread Starter
You said it clearly, this is not simulating a rollover, it's measuring the strength of the pillar. It meets the Federal Standard, but it's not good enough for the IIHS. If they were trying to simulate a rollover, there would be a dummy to measure forces and determined how badly hurt a person would be from that.
I still disagree with you about having to be retarded to flip a car, accidents happen.....
I still disagree with you about having to be retarded to flip a car, accidents happen.....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
