8 replies to this topic

[mab01uk]

Euro NCAP 20 years of crash testing - Honda Jazz vs Rover 100 Comparison

 

 

 

"As independent crash test body Euro NCAP celebrates its 20th birthday, we look at just how far safety has come. The red Rover 100 was tested back in 1997, while the yellow Honda Jazz is one of the latest small cars."

 

[Sam]

Scary to watch, but it's not really fair as the Rover was shockingly bad even by 1997 standards. 

 

How about this one - the VW Santana. I've been in quite a few of these and this video is always in the back of my mind when I jump in one 

 

 

 

[r3k1355]

I heard before the 1997 test even started the testers docked one star off because "Car looks ****"

[Scousemouse]

That would be "shi" then  (minus the one star)

[pusb]

Did the MPI Mini ever have an NCAP test?

[Mini-Mad-Craig]

I don't think it is a fair test. By 1997 the Metro was already an ancient design (Finalised in 1979 as the Austin Mk1) And it has changed VERY little since then with the exception of the different front end structure to make room for the K-Series. There was far safer cars around in 1997 than a METRO!!! The changes to structure are pretty much in line with testing a 1959 Mini and a 1997 Sportspack. Very few changes to the body design to make it stronger, obviously there were changes, but not many. 

 

Although I have reason to be biased

 

Edited by Mini-Mad-Craig, 13 February 2017 - 05:53 PM.

[mab01uk]

Did the MPI Mini ever have an NCAP test?

 

No I think the MPi Mini was exempted due to the age of the original design with no major changes, if they had ever fitted the K-Series then it probably would and then like the 'Metro' the bad NCAP publicity would have killed the Mini off earlier (BMW wanted to keep the classic Mini going until the introduction of the new R50 MINI in 2001).....whereas the Rover 100 was considered a major revamp of the Metro structure plus a new engine/transmission layout.

 

This is the nearest the Mini got to an NCAP test:-

 

1961-65 British Pathe Film of the BMC Mini and 1100 crashing into a concrete block at 25, 30 and 38 miles per hour.

Ever wondered what would happen if you crashed your classic into a massive concrete block? Wonder no more – it's all in this BMC crash test video. 
It covers the Mini, 1100 (3:30), Landcrab (6:25) and MGB (9:30).

 

 

Edited by mab01uk, 13 February 2017 - 08:41 PM.

[pusb]

 

Did the MPI Mini ever have an NCAP test?

 

No I think the MPi Mini was exempted due to the age of the original design with no major changes, if they had ever fitted the K-Series then it probably would and then like the 'Metro' the bad NCAP publicity would have killed the Mini off earlier (BMW wanted to keep the classic Mini going until the introduction of the new R50 MINI in 2001).....whereas the Rover 100 was considered a major revamp of the Metro structure plus a new engine/transmission layout.

 

This is the nearest the Mini got to an NCAP test:-

 

1961-65 British Pathe Film of the BMC Mini and 1100 crashing into a concrete block at 25, 30 and 38 miles per hour.

Ever wondered what would happen if you crashed your classic into a massive concrete block? Wonder no more – it's all in this BMC crash test video. 
It covers the Mini, 1100 (3:30), Landcrab (6:25) and MGB (9:30).

 

 

 

 

Wow big difference between the 25mph and 30mph tests. 

 

The 25 one looks like you could walk away without injury, 30 looks like it could break your legs.

 

In the second video with the offset crash, I don't know what speed the Mini is doing, but it doesn't look much worse than the Metro crash.  

[tiger99]

Yes, 30 would indeed break your legs due to subframe intrusion. You would be trapped and have to be cut out. I have seen the aftermath of several tests with dummies at TRRL and all would have had severe leg injuries. They had to be cut out, and being the same mass as average people, had to be transported away in wheelchairs. I always found the sight of a dummy in a wheelchair somewhat amusing! I never saw any Mini where vehicle damage in the head or chest area was so bad as to be probably fatal.

 

I suspect that the abominable rubber mounted subframe would actually do better in that test, as the feeble toeboard mounts would just rip apart and let the subframe rear legs slide down under the floor instead of pushing the bulkhead back.

 

If it concerns you, it should be possible to fit a brace across the car, securely attached to tunnel, both flitch panels and both inner sills, to improve protection against subframe intrusion while also beefing up the toeboard mount area for solid mounts. My opinion (your usage of your car may lead to different conclusions) is that an accident involving subframe intrusion is much more likely than a roll-over, and indeed the raised centre of mass caused by fitting a roll cage makes a roll-over more likely, so subframe anti-intrusion and, again arguable, side impact protection, would be more important things to attend to than a roll cage for road use.