The Federal Government requires that any car that you buy will meet minimum crash tests.
A new test has been created and car makers will have to meet its requirments over the next few years.
The test makes sure that a passenger will survive the car hitting a pole. Hitting a pole is worse than being
hit by another car because the pole concentrates all of the crash energy into a small area.
Click HERE to see two YouTube videos of pole crash tests.
My invention should do well in a pole test because its side bumper can be strong enough
to prevent the pole from intruding into the passenger compartment.
Click HERE to see a video of a small car being hit in the rear.
The following references show the need for my invention:
The Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS) has recently shown that small cars do poorly in
head-on crashes with larger cars. The small cars do best in head-on crashes because of seat belts
and front air bags. Small cars do worse in side and rear collisions. My invention will help the most
in side and rear collisions.
In the following YouTube video from the IIHS, please note that a small car hitting a wall is the equivalent
of the car hitting a car model the same as itself. What are the odds of a Smart car hitting only another Smart?
The IIHS is cautioning the public that the Good ratings are not really so good.
When the small car has a head on collision with a larger car, the small car gets pushed backwards.
This shows that the small cars passengers are suffering very high g forces which can cause brain and
Click HERE for YouTube from IIHS.
In the December 2008 issue of Scientific American there is an article on "Crashless Cars".
At the bottom of page 88 it states that lightweight cars are one way to get more fuel economy. It then states that
"Unfortunately, such 'lightweighting' often results in vehicles with less robust structures that tend to sustain more damage in collisions."
From Society of Automotive Engineers Magazine: Automotive Engineering December 2008
Article: Bodybuilding 101:
Steadily rising requirements for crash safety from both tough new government tests and from consumers who demand maximum scores on crash tests have led carmakers to place ever-higher emphasis on designing vehicles that are strong enough to protect their occupants, while being soft enough to cushion the blow of impact.
European pedestrian protection requirements and upcoming U.S. rear-impact and pole side-impact tests are incredibly high hurdles for engineers to clear when designing vehicles for mass production at a reasonable price with maximum fuel efficiency.
While the challenges are getting tougher, interest in smaller, more efficient cars is rising, creating demand for a product that is even more difficult to create. Volvo Cars found this to be the case when developing the C30 sport coupe from the S40 sedan platform. The coupe’s truncated tail made the U.S. government’s rear-impact crash test much more of a challenge because of the reduced amount of crush space, reported Thomas Broberg, Senior Technical Advisor for Safety for Volvo Cars.
“Rear impact, specifically in smaller cars, is a challenge,” said Broberg. “The shorter the overhang you have the more difficult the challenge.” The solution is in careful design of the load path.
“You have to be more clever in how you dissipate the load.”
From Insurance Institute for Highway Safety:
Small cars have grown especially popular as gasoline prices fluctuate and consumers become more conservation-minded. Nolan cautions that even though current models do a better job of protecting people in front, side, and rear crashes than earlier ones, small cars inherently afford less crash protection than bigger, heavier vehicles. "There's no escaping the laws of physics,"
Nolan says. "People in larger, heavier cars fare better in crashes with other vehicles and in single-vehicle crashes than people in smaller ones."
Click HERE to see a small car that was rear ended.
Click HERE to go to a series of technical papers published by the Auto-Steel Partnership.
These papers show that the auto industry is making a huge effort to reduce the weight of a vehicle while maintaining crashworthiness.
There is a lot of effort on designing side rails that will absorb impact energy in a frontal collision.
My patent application claims the addition of a front bumper connected to the crumple zone box. This bumper is not shown on my CAD figures
because I originally thought that it was not needed because of frontal air bags and the large engine compartment.
Since there is so much work being done on side rails, it seems that the front bumper connected to the crumple box is a good idea.
Many of the papers are attempts to increase the strength of the side pillars. My side bumpers will reduce the need for super strength in side pillars.
Additionally, the boron steel side pillars are causing problems for rescue workers who must cut the pillars to extricate accident victims.
Their cutting tools have problems cutting the boron steel.