Prius "c" among those that received a "poor" rating in IIHS crash test...

Well, if you were going 35 and a car hit you head on going 35 the force of the impact was... 35 MPH.

 

What?

Two objects aimed directly at each other, each traveling at 35 mph, experience a collision that's the same as one of the objects moving 70 mph toward the other object, stationary.

 

No. The energy from the crash is transferred to each car therefore halving it.

 

Two cars running into each other at 50 mph will transfer energy equivalent to 50 mph to each car. So to them it would be like running into a brick wall at 50 mph. It does double the amount of energy to 100 mph, but since there are two cars it gets separated to 50 mph each.

Mythbusters on Head-on Collisions – Greg Laden's Blog

 

And if one of them did suffer the equivalent of a 100mph crash into a brick wall, I want to be in the other one.

 

Ugh, it's apparently been too long since my last physics class. This makes more sense now that I think about it - thanks for setting me straight.

However, since the c is at the bottom of the vehicle totem pole weight and collision-wise, it's going to take the brunt of a head-on collision in almost any matchup. It'll be crushed more according to the results of this test, and the weight difference (F=ma) means bad news for anyone inside the car.

I imagine the scenario where the results of this test is scariest is on rural 2-lane undivided highways, because people are driving 55-65 mph and the majority of vehicles on those roads are trucks and large SUVs. Unfortunately, the SO has a 2013 Accent which also wasn't rated well, and her parents live in the middle of nowhere. Guess we'll be extra careful with winter driving there.

 

But when tested with a full front end collision, the C does well... so, in theory, as long as you only hit fully head on, and not partially head on, you should be okay.

 

Just like Arnold says in Last Action Hero after intentionally causing a head on collision to kill the bad guys and save himself and the kid.

Kid: "You are lucky to be alive, you dumb idiot!"
Arnold: "'89 Mercury Sable, standard air bag. Checker cab, no air bag. Who is dumb?"

It does matter what car you crash into and with. It's also much safer to have a true flat head on than to hit at an offset and/or angle

 

This new test has me thinking about data. And I imagine everyone who owns a V, C or Fiat might be thinking "what's up with all of this." On a objective note there are some very interesting photos on the IIHS site showing the C's driver compartment crushed during the frontal test. The test dummy's foot is askew which is not too cool.

Another interesting tidbit is the aggregate metric for mini-cars and how the Yaris scores a "moderate." I wonder why since it's quite similar to the "C?" This all said - there are a lot of variables with regards to actual collisions and this set of data indicates a trend vs. what occurs in a real life. Having had some very, very interesting crashes in a Toyota Corolla (side impact approx. 20 mph) , Fiat Strada (front and driver's side approx 25 m,ph) and Honda Civic (trunk hits a boulder - Bridgestone tires spin out) - all I can say is that I've walked away from all intact. They were all small cars without air bags. So, I take this new set of data for what it is - a pattern indicating the advantage of mass, and some engineering to negate impacts.


Safety ratings

 

That makes sense if the cars have approximately equal mass. But if one car has twice the mass of the other, then the big car "wins" by effectively being allocated a lot less of that 50 mph, and the extra velocity is awarded to the smaller car. Try driving your microcar at 50 mph on train tracks into a locomotive approaching at 50 mph and see what happens.

As people keep noting, size matters. All things being equal, I'd prefer to be protected by monstrous mass. But we're here because we appreciate and enjoy the nimbleness, economy, reliability, whatever of a Prius. And of course the air bags and other safety features.

It's a hazardous world and every path carries its risks. We choose the compromise that best suits us and try to make it work; beyond that we're in God's hands.

In the near future, we'll be seeing more and more features that take driving decisions out of the driver's hands. Self-parking and radar warnings and adaptive cruise control and the like are already in ordinary cars. As the cars become more autonomous, the game will change.

I have mixed feelings about all this. Just as we're no longer really sure whether our smart phones and computers work for us or for some remote entity (the NSA? Russian hackers? the Illuminati?), so will our cars become suspect.

For example, police chases will become a thing of the past. When the police want you, they'll just override your car. It will lock your doors, roll up your windows, and drive you down to the station for booking. But at least you know you'll get there in perfect safety.

 

Skylis - did the insurance company fix the car or total it?

 

Here's an interesting addendum to the above:

2013 Prius Liftback, untested by the IIHS for small-overlap.

2013 Toyota Prius 5 HB FWD | Safercar -- NHTSA

5 stars, frontal barrier crash rating for the driver. Overall rating is at 5 stars.

2014 Prius Liftback, "acceptable" result by the IIHS for small-overlap

2014 Toyota Prius 5 HB FWD | Safercar -- NHTSA

4 stars, frontal barrier crash rating for the driver(!) Overall rating is reduced to 4 stars(!)

I'm assuming that they did not alter the rating criteria, since both the Prius C and Prius V structure and results have remained the same between 2013 to 2014.

Is it possible that the front structure modification in the Prius Liftback, presumably made to fortify results in the small-overlap test... actually compromised the results in the NHTSA test?

 

It's a total loss.

Fortunately -- I can't imagine what long-term problems might have crept up if this became a fixer-upper.

 

That is my fear about mine. Not sure which way they will go with it.

 

They did mention in the article that the test changed from 35mph to 40.

 

You are incorrect. Because you are mixing up tests.

The IIHS small overlap test is at 40 mph. That is what you are reading in the LA Times article I cited.
Chevy Spark only subcompact car to pass insurance group crash test - latimes.com

The NHTSA frontal crash test remains at 35mph and the test has been unchanged since the last overhaul in 2010.
http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/5-Star+FAQ#thirteen

Again, what I am talking about is the downgrade in the Prius Liftback's NHTSA ratings between 2013 and 2014. The test was not changed at all, as is evident between the structurally-unchanged 2013 vs. 2014 Prius V, and between the 2013 vs. 2014 Prius C. Their scores have remained the same.

The structurally-changed 2014 Prius Liftback (done so to score presumably better on the IIHS small-overlap test) has shown a decline in the NHTSA frontal crash test performance relative to the 5-star performance of the original 2013/2012/2011 Prius Liftback.

 

The 2012 received goods on everything, if I remember correctly. So the different test did impact it.

 

I don't know how to tell you again that the NHTSA frontal crash test wasn't changed.

 

I didn't imply that the test changed, just that there was more than one test done. Initially, the 2012s showed with goods on everything. I have verified this with my window sticker from purchasing the car.

 

Are you saying that, "so the different test did impact it," refers to the IIHS vs. the NHTSA? If that is so, then I apologize for the misreading.

There is another misunderstanding, though...

I'm pretty sure window stickers never list the IIHS ratings. The NHTSA ratings are what's on there because they are mandated by law. I guess it also needs to be noted that the NHTSA rating never takes into account any IIHS results. I am saying that the reduced NHTSA frontal crash (and overall) rating comes about directly from the change in the front structure of the car, and not some averaging of the IIHS results into the mix. I am saying that the change of the front structure is a double-edged sword, helping in the performance of one test (IIHS small-overlap) while detracting from the performance of another (NHTSA frontal crash).