Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Airmon
GeckoGT I can see the point Brazen is trying to make. If a 1200kg light car hits a wall at 60kph it is impacting with much lower kinetic energy then a 1800kg car hitting a wall at the same speed. Thus the smaller car requires much less energy to impart the same amount of damage to it as the larger car would (seems common sense). But you are right in that it doesn't particularly matter as in the real world collisions are not planned.
|
I understand what he is saying and you are right it is logical. But the point is that I have tried to put across is that the ANCAP does not assess the damage to the vehicle, it rates the injury causing forces applied to the occupants in the vehicle (2 adults in the front, a 3 year old and a 18 month old, both in approved restraints). Thus it assesses the car ability to absorb a known force.
No one buying a small car is going to say "I would like a small car, I only need a small car, but if I get hit by a 4wd it will do lots of damage so I better buy the 4WD". Just like those that are looking at large sedans don't opt for a Hummer because they might get hit by a truck. In crash protection, people want to know that they will be protected in an average crash with minimal chance of injury. Considering the average crash happens at less than 40 km/h and is normally front to rear type crashes, the ANCAP testing does very well in giving a decent indication of what is going to happen if you buy it and are involved in an accident.