Mazda demonstrates that small lightweight cars be safe too
The doors stay intact and functional
When Mazda introduced their new B-class car, the Mazda2, earlier this year one of the most interesting technical aspects of the car was that the company bucked the seemingly irreversible trend of making new models bigger and heavier. The new car is more than 200 lbs lighter than its predecessor. While many people (particularly SUV owners) seem to think that lighter cars are inherently less safe this doesn't necessarily have to be the case. The new Mazda2 has just completed its EuoNCAP crash testing and received the maximum five stars for adult crash protection and four stars for child protection. It's not clear why smaller children would fair worse than adults but the ratings are still very good such a small car.
[Source: Mazda]
New Mazda2 earns 5-Star Ranking
from Euro NCAP
Leverkusen, 19th December 2007. The European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) has awarded the all-new Mazda2 five stars for adult occupant protection.
Thanks to a lightweight, but strong body using high and ultra high tensile steels, the new Mazda2 proved itself amongst the bests in the segment on Euro NCAP crash tests. It scored an impressive total of 34 points for adult protection and the highest possible ranking of five stars.
Not only are adults given optimal protection in the new Mazda2, children are as well. With a four-star ranking for child occupant protection with 37 points, Mazda's new sub-compact becomes one of the few cars in its segment to achieve this level of child protection. And for pedestrian safety, Mazda2 achieved an admirable 18 points and two-star ranking.
The new Mazda2 is not only one of the lightest, most fuel-efficient, best-looking, and fun to drive sub-compacts in Europe – it is also officially one of the safest.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jon 5:35PM (4/18/2008)
kballs knows what he is talkign about.
also... don't forget that in an SUV you are much more likely to roll over in an accident, and much more likely to die in the event of a roll-over than in a small car. As the small cars are relatively stronger when up-turned.
Also much more likely to cause an accident, as they can't turn or stop as well. And reduce visibility of other drivers on the road.
They also increase insurance rates.
Reply
jeff 2:30PM (7/04/2008)
Yes, I would grant that the light vehicle will more abruptly change its speed than a heavy vehicle in a collision between the two. A fire truck would outperform the Hummer, but would itself loose to a locomotive. Bicyclists and pedestrian loose to everyone.
A more sane approach to safety might be to slow down and impose an even higher penalty on needlessly heavy vehicles to discourage that the self centered or wealthy put the poor or environmentally concerned at more risk than necessary.
Expensive gas is part of the answer, but with income inequality what it is the poor will be walking before the rich give up hot rod SUVs.
Reply
peter 12:29AM (12/20/2007)
"but the ratings are still very good such a small car."
i thought the whole point was that they were good ratings for any car? closing the piece on this note plays into the old, "bigger is safer" line (which i thought was being refuted?), any big vehicle is ultimately more dangerous, just sometimes it's only to the people who aren't inside it.
Reply
JudgeBandor 7:02PM (12/19/2007)
Good for Mazda, I'm tired of the concept that cars must be huge. Cars are to move people and should be only large enough to accomplish that job. Fuel efficency should be the priority.
Reply
yahoo 8:28PM (12/19/2007)
Compact cars such as the Mazda 2 and the Honda Fit achieve high crash ratings despite their modest size. However, because they are relatively light, even a compact car with a high safety-rating will not crash well if it is involved in a collision with a full-sized car or suv because of the significant weight difference. Thus, the notion of a safe compact car is somewhat misleading. However, a safe compact car should perform well in a collision with another compact car of similar weight.
Reply
BHendrix 10:50PM (12/19/2007)
Yes, the crash test ratings are for collisions with similarly-sized cars. But I'm not sure if it's really fair to question the safety of small cars on that basis...
I think people need to realize that 'safe' is not an absolute. Being safe doesn't mean you can be protected against anything, or even most things. Think of all the perils that could possibly befall you in a given situation. Then think of the life you would have to live, the kind of society we would have if we didn't think of safety in a broader context.
There are people out there who think that because there are Suburbans on the road, that they themselves must drive a humongous vehicle in order to be 'safe.' Well, what about buses then? Or Winnebegos? And eighteen-wheelers? And trains and snow ploughs and cement mixers and...? If we follow that kind of reasoning, there would be no safety even in the Suburban.
Reply
Wildgoosechase 1:48AM (12/20/2007)
Sure, in a serious crash a small car can absorb the damage. The problem is that even a minor crash will affect the crumple zones, totaling a small car. Insurance rates will rise as their will no longer be a minor fneder bender, we will have disposable cars.
Reply
Allen 8:23AM (12/20/2007)
Mazda demonstrates that small lightweight cars canbe safe too
Reply
EnviroBob 9:50AM (12/20/2007)
So not only would I need two of these to take my family to visit grandma, costing me more in gas than my Escalade, if we got into an accident, I would basically lose the car and a lot of money. Yea!
Reply
kballs 2:10PM (12/20/2007)
Higher mass does not give you one single direct advantage in a real-world vehicle collision.
1. higher mass means more energy to absorb by BOTH vehicles (not just the little guy who you always think you will be colliding with)
2. higher mass means emergency braking will have less effect on reducing collision energies
3. two high-mass vehicles colliding with each other will be more catastrophic than two low-mass vehicles colliding, simply because there is a lot more energy to absorb
4. a high-mass vehicle colliding with a barrier can be more catastrophic than a low-mass vehicle colliding with a barrier - far more energy to absorb
5. driving an SUV doesn't mean you will "win", remember there are plenty of buses and tractor-trailers out there too, and proportionally compared to a big rig, your SUV is about the same as a compact car
6. vehicles aren't billiard balls, they crumple - when a suburban hits a civic the civic doesn't go flying 500ft (though a jacked-up suburban could run over the civic and decapitate the occupants), this is why they call vehicle collisions "inelastic" as billiard ball collisions are elastic (almost all the energy is transferred between balls by elastic deformation, and almost none is absorbed by permanent deformation)
The only thing that makes you safer in a collision is having as little energy to absorb as possible and having as much energy absorption [by the vehicles not the occupants] as possible.
Things that absorb energy
1. crumple zones - which need to be long/deep but not necessarily heavy to absorb crash energy, and prevent as much energy as possible from being directed at occupants
2. seatbelts - they actually stretch a lot in a collision decelerating your body, along with tension limiters that spool out a little extra slack during the collision
3. airbags - not as much to cushion your landing on the steering wheel or dash (seatbelts should prevent that), but to help decelerate you smoothly and assist the seatbelts
Things that lower the amount of energy to absorb:
1. lower mass vehicles
2. lower collision speeds
So if you must take the attitude that you have to drive a big vehicle so you "win", maybe small car drivers should carry guns so they can shoot dangerous absent-minded drivers (in any vehicle type) so they can have an advantage too. Both attitudes suggest malice and homicidal tendencies. Both are equally irresponsible choices. I'm not saying all people who drive larger vehicles are evil, but if "winning" is one of your motivations...
Reply
mike 8:59PM (12/20/2007)
The real advantage of High-Mass vehicle is it requires more gas to get it moving, every single day it's on the road. It's as if the auto industry owned stock in the oil industry.
It's like the XBOX being sold at a loss, so that they make a big profit on the games.
Reply