Jump to content

Why I Like My X3


BFM
 Share

Recommended Posts

I always knew there was a reason I paid a lot for my cars and it was proved

last night. I was involved in an RTC. I was slowing behind a

bus, a Yaris was slowing behind me and a Mazda at the back submarined

under the Yaris which then cannoned into the X3. I felt a thump but nothing

much else. I got out to look; both the other cars were obvious write-offs,

and my car had a few dents and scratches in the back bumper. The road was

blocked and the chap in the Yaris was clutching his neck, so I got help;

nice quick response. The garage tells me it needs a new bumper and a few

scratches respraying. I have a few minor aches.

 

I was going to upload some pictures but got an internal server error returned.

Edited by blueflightmedic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always knew there was a reason I paid a lot for my cars and it was proved

last night. I was involved in an RTC. I was slowing behind a

bus, a Yaris was slowing behind me and a Mazda at the back submarined

under the Yaris which then cannoned into the X3. I felt a thump but nothing

much else. I got out to look; both the other cars were obvious write-offs,

and my car had a few dents and scratches in the back bumper. The road was

blocked and the chap in the Yaris was clutching his neck, so I got help;

nice quick response. The garage tells me it needs a new bumper and a few

scratches respraying. I have a few minor aches.

 

I was going to upload some pictures but got an internal server error returned.

 

Lucky escape. .... Glad you are OK. ...

 

The server error could be the pictures are too large to post. ... try image shack and post up the link here. ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless of course you are a pedestrian hit by one. ..

 

NCAP Extract:

 

Pedestrian

The X3 scored no points for the protection offered to pedestrians' legs by the bumper or the front edge of the bonnet. The protection provided to pedestrians' heads by the bonnet surface was rated as predominantly poor.

 

. ..

 

The design of the X3 with its blunt front is known to be particularly damaging to peds and cyclists as it hit them square on and will not hit with a glancing blow as you get with a lower car or with a swept down bonnet.

 

The Yaris of course has the same Ncap rating as the X3 so you would be as safe in it. It is not down to how much you pay for the car. Most car value is in the badge and gadgets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well i know which car i would prefer to have a accident in, and its not the yaris, or any other small car, even with a 5 star, or 10.

 

Size does make a difference!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well i know which car i would prefer to have a accident in, and its not the yaris, or any other small car, even with a 5 star, or 10.

 

Size does make a difference!

 

Size (and weight) can sometimes be an advantage but equally can be a disadvantage.

 

The two cars in this incident happen to be a Yaris probably weighing in at 1 ton and the X3 weighing in at 2 ton.

 

Now drive both along at 70 mph and try to stop, the X3 has twice the job to do and so will take a greater distance to stop the car. Safety starts with avoiding the accident. (more weight = longer stopping)

Then think of the two cars again doing 70. Now say they both drive into a tree. The X3 has two tons of force shoving it into the tree while the Yaris has half the force. The front of the X3 has twice the force crushing it into the tree.

Next, stand each car on the road and dirve another car into them. The heavier X3 is more planted on the ground so will be absorb more force than the yaris which (as in the incident) moves with the force exerted upon it rather than absorbing it. The absorbing of the force is crushing your car.

 

The heavy car also has more work to do changing direction to avoid an obstacle.

 

That said, there will be some instances and circumstances where perhaps the lighter car is a disadvantage but in most real situations the results are surprising and the weight is very often a disadvantage and works against you.

This has chaged dramatically from 20 or so years ago when a small car would just fold up on you.

 

Ya cannie change the laws of physics Jim!

 

The key to safety is more down to the systems like ABS, Airbags and of course design of the interior of the car. We are almost always not directly injured by the object hitting our car but it is how we are treated within our own car that is the main thing preventing or causing the injury.

 

One of the lowest rated cars is the huge Chrysler Voyager. So as they say - size is not everything, it is what you do with it!!

Edited by Ellisfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Yaris of course has the same Ncap rating as the X3 so you would be as safe in it. It is not down to how much you pay for the car. Most car value is in the badge and gadgets.

The NCAP ratings are only good for comparisons with other vehicles the same size/weight.

 

"Can results be compared between groups?

Accurate comparisons can only be made between cars in the same group. The frontal test mirrors a crash between two cars of similar size. A heavier car or one with a higher structure will tend to have an advantage if it impacts a smaller car. The Euro NCAP results cannot be used to predict the outcome of such crashes."

 

http://www. euroncap. com/Content-Web-Faq/f795b985-edb5-4fd6-ac45-1afc92ca6610/buying-your-car. aspx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Size (and weight) can sometimes be an advantage but equally can be a disadvantage.

 

The two cars in this incident happen to be a Yaris probably weighing in at 1 ton and the X3 weighing in at 2 ton.

 

Now drive both along at 70 mph and try to stop, the X3 has twice the job to do and so will take a greater distance to stop the car. Safety starts with avoiding the accident. (more weight = longer stopping)

Then think of the two cars again doing 70. Now say they both drive into a tree. The X3 has two tons of force shoving it into the tree while the Yaris has half the force. The front of the X3 has twice the force crushing it into the tree.

Next, stand each car on the road and dirve another car into them. The heavier X3 is more planted on the ground so will be absorb more force than the yaris which (as in the incident) moves with the force exerted upon it rather than absorbing it. The absorbing of the force is crushing your car.

 

The heavy car also has more work to do changing direction to avoid an obstacle.

 

That said, there will be some instances and circumstances where perhaps the lighter car is a disadvantage but in most real situations the results are surprising and the weight is very often a disadvantage and works against you.

This has chaged dramatically from 20 or so years ago when a small car would just fold up on you.

 

Ya cannie change the laws of physics Jim!

 

The key to safety is more down to the systems like ABS, Airbags and of course design of the interior of the car. We are almost always not directly injured by the object hitting our car but it is how we are treated within our own car that is the main thing preventing or causing the injury.

 

One of the lowest rated cars is the huge Chrysler Voyager. So as they say - size is not everything, it is what you do with it!!

 

I recall a BMW series 3 in a head on with a fiesta, the fiesta driver died and the car was wrote off.

 

The BMW driver walked away, the car was repaired.

 

Thats real world not theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I recall a BMW series 3 in a head on with a fiesta, the fiesta driver died and the car was wrote off.

 

The BMW driver walked away, the car was repaired.

 

Thats real world not theory.

 

Yes but what was the age of the cars? Crash a new Fiesta into a 20 year old 3 Series and which one do you want to be in then? I would opt for being in the Fiesta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NCAP ratings are only good for comparisons with other vehicles the same size/weight.

 

"Can results be compared between groups?

Accurate comparisons can only be made between cars in the same group. The frontal test mirrors a crash between two cars of similar size. A heavier car or one with a higher structure will tend to have an advantage if it impacts a smaller car. The Euro NCAP results cannot be used to predict the outcome of such crashes."

 

http://www. euroncap. ...g-your-car. aspx

 

That is why I used the example of both driving into a tree not driving into each other.

Clearly the bigger the thing that hits you the worse you will be. It is a sliding scale and if you put yourself in any car you are worse off the bigger the thing is that hits you.

 

It is not the lightness of your car it is the heaviness of the other car that affects you.

 

The tests are designed to measure a standard crash and make a comparison of the results. If you drove any car head on ito a 40 ton truck then the truck would most likely flatten every car no matter what size. So back to physics again, yes the compartive weight is a factor. There is an arms race element to safety as there is also with buying a taller car so that you use the other cars passengers as your crumple zone.

 

I did say there are some advantages to extra size and weight but I was just really pointing out that it was not a one way street and there are disadvantages - stopping distances being a key one to avoid the accident in the first place.

Edited by Ellisfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pedestrian debate is a red herring in this instance. The weight argument is partially correct; the greater the disparity between masses of colliding objects the more unequal the distribution of consequent forces. Remember in this instance my car was struck by two others, so the masses were approximately equal. The braking argument is flawed as you are assuming equal retardation. Larger cars are fitted with wider tyres and larger brakes and so will still stop as readily as smaller cars. The frictional forces are important.

 

Weight is a disadvantage because it requires more energy to alter the state of mass, and that has fuel consequences when accelerating and kinetic energy release to decelerate. That's physics. In terms of collisions, greater mass will win. The combination of greater mass and good energy absorbing bumper design has minimised the damage to my vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pedestrian debate is a red herring in this instance. The weight argument is partially correct; the greater the disparity between masses of colliding objects the more unequal the distribution of consequent forces. Remember in this instance my car was struck by two others, so the masses were approximately equal. The braking argument is flawed as you are assuming equal retardation. Larger cars are fitted with wider tyres and larger brakes and so will still stop as readily as smaller cars. The frictional forces are important.

 

Weight is a disadvantage because it requires more energy to alter the state of mass, and that has fuel consequences when accelerating and kinetic energy release to decelerate. That's physics. In terms of collisions, greater mass will win. The combination of greater mass and good energy absorbing bumper design has minimised the damage to my vehicle.

 

If you think about it the weight has contributed to the damage. Imagine your car was as it is exactly but it weighed nothing. Hit it up the back and it would just move forward and not be damaged. As a cars weight increases so does its tendancy to absorb a force excerted on it and so do more damage.

 

Where the weight argument fails is in the assumtpion that the extra weight is also giving extra strength. It is not.

 

If your car weighed less but was just as strong the damage would be less as the weight of the car behind simply pushed it forward.

 

Put it another way, put a ton of dead weight (say bricks) onto the bonnet of the Yaris and then drive up the back of it, the yaris would then be damaged more as it would have stayed put and taken more of the hit rather than move forward.

 

As soon as you are moving with the force excerted upon you it is no longer excerting that force.

 

The assumpton re relative damage is not correct as the Yaris has already absorbed a huge amount of the force before it gets to your car.

 

I had a feeling this would be a can of worms!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing against the X3 it was my second choice car this time round.

 

The reason your X 3 was only slightly damaged was because the main energy of the crash has already been dissipated by the primary collision that took place before the Yaris then collided with you. I attended many multiple bumps and it was quite usual for the front car to be only slightly affected PROVIDED the crash started further back down the line and the vehicle immediately behind the front car was only knocked into it, as in your case. If the opposite and the Yaris had hit you first then been hit itself you would have seen a different damage pattern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point Alan . ...

 

At the end of the day the OP feels safer in his vehicle of choice and thats all that matters to him. He won't be driving about thinking about the laws of physics and its effect on him or his vehicle in differing scenario's.

I was very surprised earlier this week when i was shown a picture printed in the 'Sun' !! the one of a Clio wedged sideways under a LGV trailer unit up to the B pillars :blink: :blink: and had apparently been dragged along the road like that for 100 or so yrds. The driver of the Clio didn't even need any first aid or hospital treatment, ( and No - she wasn't dead ;) )

 

Its all down to circumstance when it comes to RTA's /RTC's, no 2 are the same and in my view thay can't simulate all eventualities in the Ncap tests. They serve as a guideline only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The relative mass does matter as it directs the vectors of force. In an extreme case, the bullet vehicle actually bounces off the heavier. So more force is absorbed by the less massive vehicle. I accept much more force was absorbed by the Yaris by the primary collision, but the relative damage to the front of the Yaris and the back of my vehicle is astonishing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the safest vehicle on the road would be Sherman tank. It would flatten anything that it ran into.

Not much good for completing a journey in a reasonable time though, and terrible on fuel consumption.

 

Perhaps I will stick to my Mondeo and drive so that I avoid accidents. :D

'I know' is just 'I Believe' with delusions of grandeur

Mitsubishi Outlander 2.4 PHEV 4H

Unicorn 4 Cadiz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but the relative damage to the front of the Yaris and the back of my vehicle is astonishing.

Thats probably due to the fact that the BMW has a Alli cross beam behind the plastic bumper, and maybe even bumper dampers?

Obviously if a tow bar is fitted the beam is removed and replaced with a even stronger piece of steel.

 

While my guess is the Yaris, has nothing behind the plastic bumper?

Edited by xtrailman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes but what was the age of the cars? Crash a new Fiesta into a 20 year old 3 Series and which one do you want to be in then? I would opt for being in the Fiesta.

 

I drive a new fiesta titaniam 1. 6 Diesel and I honestly think it would come off worst if it collided with a Pram !! it has the build quality of a tupperware sandwich box. mind you its still preferable to an X3. ...

Stevenj

Link to comment
Share on other sites

blueflightmedic

 

Minor point but are you aware that your BM is not a 3. 5d but actually a 3. 0d twin turbo. Not being smart - fantastic cars. Also which one of Newtons laws was 'Every action has an equal and opposite reaction'. therefore Yaris collides with BM. Force (mass x deceleration) on both is the same. The yaris absorbs the force (energy) by crumpling and this having a longer deceleration time. i think that the BM is just stronger thus it absorbs the energy and converts it into movement rather than destruction.

 

Who knows - wasnt that good at physics anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, it is called that bythe manufacturer. You are quite correct on the layout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www. euroncap. ...1e-a4b02f4f2873

 

The facts. ?(tiggers link)

 

 

May be of interest. http://www. euroncap. ...57-7cb6f0c99d50

Edited by xtrailman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The modern car is designed to prevent or minimise the injury to the occupant. This cannot be measured or assessed by how much the car is damaged in a crash. Modern cars are made to crumple in a crash. In doing so they absorb the forces and bring you to a more gentle halt. This stops you getting hurt by the inside of the car and also stops your innerds getting ruptured by a too sudden stop. So if car A and B hit each other head on and A was more damaged it may be that it worked better at protecting the driver of A from being hurt.

 

The idea of building a car like a tank to deflect damage was dismissed about 40 years ago. The last thing you really need in an accident is a car that does not have some give in it to absorb the force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...