As a man, we all want a little hard, as if the way to give yourself a sense of security. The same is true for cars, people often rely on the body to determine the car hard not hard enough can give people a sense of security, and in order to directly quantify the “hardness”, the easiest way is to crash tests.
However, in the past, we do not have a domestic relatively strict impartiality crash test standards, more car prices recharge wholesale five-star, but with the impact of research Mediator test debut, all welcomed the opportunity to be reversed, even in a safe, known for Volvo have been a bad review, we talk today mediator research in the end he was.
mediator of research called “Bulgarian Automotive Technology Research Institute Co., Ltd.”, specializing in vehicle safety performance, maintainability performance, repair parts and man-hour standards. You can see from the official website of China Insurance Institute, its shareholder base is familiar with our insurance company.
Bulgarian Institute of American IIHS crash reference standards, in particular adding 25 percentage offset collision test for the structural strength of the vehicle has a great challenge, many models are planted in this project.
Test total is divided into four major items include crashworthiness and service economy, the vehicle occupant protection, vehicle safety and aid the layman security system. After the composite score, score will each test, including G (Excellent), A (good), M (general), P (poor).
In theory, no. As noted earlier, PICC research was founded by the major insurance companies, in simple terms, they are safe to be in the end by crash tests examine different models, car repair comes the question, after all, the dangerous condition of the vehicle in case of accident, these factors directly related to the amount of compensation the insurance company. Therefore, in such a direct link with their own interests to do, no one will give in, not to mention a savvy insurance companies.
Their test vehicles are also their own money to buy from the market, the lowest allocation models, of course, if the manufacturers are confident enough, you can also choose to send test voluntarily. The full crash test, the manufacturers will have the relevant technical personnel at the scene to watch, in order to ensure the fairness of the test.
2019, conducted a total of two batches of test, currently published the results of 14 models, including sedans, SUV, its own brand joint venture brands, luxury brands, is still relatively complete. Furthermore, most of the models obtained from the results in [P crashworthiness and service economy] this one, it is more surprising is that, actually there are several models obtained in [M] members of the car project, then we had a good analysis.
From the point of view of daily use, the probability of occurrence of a low-speed collision would like to pair is more than a high-speed collision, after all, who can not be avoided rub, such as rear-end accidents occur within the city. This time the economics of a low-speed collision is very important. The 2019 models, nine models P obtained in this project, in short, in the event of a low-speed collision, the vehicle is easy to damage and expensive repair.
Volvo XC60 which we very representative example, say security Volvo’s absolutely no doubt, but why get in a low-speed crash in the negative feedback it? From the results given by the official point of view, which is mainly reflected in the [economic] vehicle repair this one, XC60 direct access to 0.
can be seen, XC60 most fatal problem is 15km / h frontal crash, the airbag actually burst. Some might say, when the collision balloon pop it not protect the occupants do? In fact, this idea is not entirely right, in the low-speed crash, the airbag if too sensitive, there may actually cause harm to occupants, but also a sharp increase in the maintenance cost of the vehicle, is also, therefore, XC60 will get this one difference comment.
So, in the end how much the repair will be sentenced to 0 it? Mediator gives the proportion of research is 14.5 percentage, which is the single collision repair if the priceVehicle prices reached 14.5 percentage will be sentenced to 0.
However, there are exceptions, such as Dongfeng Fengshen AX7, its service economy is not 0, but the score is still negative feedback, which is mainly reflected in the structure crashworthiness deviation, 15km / h per hour collision, cover severely deformed, headlights, bumper beam, front bumper have been damaged, although the repair is very expensive, but if you upgrade some of the structural strength, able to apparently more it is good.
which there is no good of it? Of course there is! This 14 models, the Ford Focus and the more auspicious star in a low-speed collisions on A, whether it is structural crashworthiness or maintenance costs are good, commendable!
The next step is the most important member of the car to protect the project, in case of a collision, the safety of the members of the car is the most important members of this large-car entry ratings according to 25 percentage offset impact, side impact, roof strength and seat / headrest these four sub-fraction of overall results. This 14 models, only seven models get G.
Even more surprising is that a model is only Biyaditang own brands, other brands are joint ventures. It seems that once again confirms the joint venture brands safer to say?
which did not disappoint models do? Of course, the first is the modern Festa, as a price move higher than the collar of China special for the car, it’s actually lost their own safety collar fixed at 25 percent offset collision, A pillar bent close to 90 degrees, low distribution models and because no side curtain airbags, leading to the dummy’s head forward to the left, which means if it is the reality of the collision, the driver’s head is likely to be bent to damage the a-pillar .
Next, in a side collision is only obtained Festa M. In the absence of side curtain airbags, head injuries resulting in dummy insufficient strength of the lower portion of the pelvis and leg B pillar cause injuries. At the same time, because there is no passenger side airbag scaredAnd protection of the side curtain, torso also been some damage.
In addition a car is another disappointment for a special car: Honda Ling faction. In 25 percentage offset collision, Ling faction of the A-pillar same happened bent, and the lower half of cockpit intrusion more obvious to the driver’s legs can cause injury. Similarly, the minimum side curtain air distribution models do not, resulting in the driver’s head shifted to the left, front airbag can not be fully functional.
In a side collision, Ling can still send other items to protect poor except the driver’s head, from a video released by the official point of view, the dummy’s head has been hit the outside of the vehicle collision scooters, assuming this is the reality of the accident, the driver had been “headshot” was. Of course, if there is a high version side curtain airbags, which is one of scores should be higher. Festa by collision and Ling faction we can draw a conclusion, buying a car or try to buy high with balloon many versions of it.
Of course, there is unsafe particularly safe, but I do not want to say XC60, because Volvo safety is as it should, because it is selling Volvo brand. I want to say but rather an insecure in our traditional image of Japanese cars: Asian dragon.
In addition to the high maintenance costs after low-speed crash, the Asian dragon in the other projects with excellent results, especially in the most difficult 25 percentage offset impact, Avalon a column of motionless, not even the center console obvious deformation, the whole system comes standard with 10 airbags play a stabilizing role in the protection of the driver is in place.
This is not me blowing Toyota, can only say that after switching to TNGA architecture, Toyota for safety very seriously indeed. Mediator current study tested the eighth generation of the Camry, Yize, the new Ralink and Avalon have achieved excellent results, it also proved that Japanese brands are not doing a bad security, but some brands do not want to use these cost Bale place.
The last is that we often overlook the carLayman protection and safety assist systems score. Generally speaking, each of these two models in the score will not be too bad, but in 2019 the 14 models in this, there are some special cases.
First, the Dongfeng Fengshen AX7 car layman project gained P, which is the 14 car models that only a difference in assessment models, through to the official scores See, mainly in the pedestrian head AX7 low scores experiments, out of 24 points in the case of obtaining only 5 minutes.
Of course, the official score is the result of a very complex formulas and criteria calculated, we as users actually do not need to care about these, after all, these data are factory engineer in the development process need to be considered. We just need to know if AX7 collision with a pedestrian occurred outside the car, the pedestrian’s head hit the hood, the chance of injury is relatively large.
In the secondary security system testing, F5 and BAIC Harvard Saab D50 whole system is not active safety systems, especially for Harvard F5, the top with a Buy to 130,000 own-brand compact-class SUV, there really should take the initiative to the brakes.
remember Dongfeng Fengshen AX7 just mentioned it? It and “roll-over” in the auxiliary safety test, the active safety systems get only M, is simple, its initiative in the face of obstacles brakes did not respond directly hit …… go, forget, or do not believe it actively brakes.
has been the domestic do not have a real strict and fair crash test organization, but with the rise of China Insurance Institute, I see to a ray of hope. From the results it is telling that many models in the “Five Star Wholesale Department” five-star, to the Bulgarian research on the true colors, it is very ironic.
Some people say that the manufacturers will be specially designed for crash tests, such as deliberately enhance the strength of the stringer for 25 percentage offset crash , meaning some quite examination-oriented education. But I want to sayYes, even the examination-oriented education, stronger than 破罐子破摔, standard questions to put in there, if you still do not want to learn, it is not only lazy, it is irresponsible.
There is no doubt, PICC crash test research will promote the development of the auto industry, there will be more and more manufacturers pay attention to vehicle safety. From the user’s point of view, I certainly hope more and more cars on the mediator can research the crash test, especially hot-selling models, their sales volume, multi-user, the safety of these vehicles if good, will be related to more many lives and families.
If a car good in all aspects, but there was poor crash test results, would you buy it?