RE: RE: The Dodge Dakota and Nissan Frontier rated ``poor''

From: Craig Baltzer (Craig.Baltzer@Anjura.COM)
Date: Wed May 13 1998 - 22:12:02 EDT


Not to defend Consumer Reports (which I personally have no use for), but
I think the object here is to provide a "basis for eval" that doesn't
involve any more variables than necessary. If they slammed two vehicles
together, then that wouldn't tell you anything (i.e. there were numerous
"Dak wins" a couple of months ago when Daks were hitting cars, followed
by a "Dak loss" when Robert T. smacked his into a bigger truck). So what
they are trying to show is how well the vehicle itself can absorb energy
in a crash, which is kind of a realistic "worst case", 'cause you
typically don't get a wide range to things to chose to hit in an
accident.

As far as the "offset", things are hardly ever "square on" in a crash.
The offset crash shows what would typically happen in a single vehicle
type of accident (go off the road, hit a tree/pole/culvert/cement
divider/bridge buttment/parked car).

So, is the test "real world", prob. not. Is it useful for comparison,
prob. yes. Does it need some "context" (i.e. how does the vehicle
survive side impact, etc., etc., etc.) prob. yes. The biggest issue is
that the media jump all over this like a new Clinton girlfriend and just
milk it to death without any context of what it means...

Craig

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Aaron Hefner [mailto:gt9742a@prism.gatech.edu]
Sent: May 13, 1998 1:51 PM
To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
Subject: Re: DML: RE: The Dodge Dakota and Nissan Frontier rated
``poor'' in 40 mph

>
>
>
>
> Small Pickups Do Poorly in Tests
>
> .....
>
> Once again the philosophy to live by is believe 10% and doubt that.
>
> Not that I believe the author of the article is making it up, it's my
> belief that the tests are totally arbitrary and have little or no
basis
> in reality. Just look at how they are set up and think a little bit
on
> how often that actually happens --- probably closing in on 0%
> probability.
>
> Not too many people go running into solid immovable objects at 40 MPH
> that don't deflect or deform unless they are contemplating suicide.
>
> Mark R
> 93 5.2Magnum, CC, LE, slushbox, pigeon hauler
>

Nor do they only hit half the truck on that immoveable object, I don't
see
how they come up with these tests, they give no real information for you
to use maybe if the test was rearending another vehicle at 40 mph, or
hitting another vehicle headon when both are going 40 or 50 mph, then
you'd have something to go by....

Bruce



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:08:47 EDT