[SakhirM4]

"Over time, all cars will do well in this test, but we're in a transitional period right now where only a small number of vehicles pass," said Karl Brauer, a senior industry analyst at Kelley Blue Book, "and only if they've taken this type of crash energy into account during their latest engineering redesign or refresh."

[Arcades]

Originally Posted by BimmerDallas

how often? it's actually 25% of real world (frontal crash) accidents happening like "small overlap crash test". That's why IIHS started to implicated it into their standardized crash test. I hope M3/M4 would be different.

"Despite widespread advances in traffic safety, these sorts of accidents remain an automotive Achilles' heel – many cars are surprisingly inept at handling them. In the real world, small-front overlap crashes account for almost a quarter of frontal crashes that involve a serious injury or death".
http://www.autoblog.com/2014/05/06/b...nt-crash-test/

Worrying about injury while driving makes you less of a driver.

Things happen on the road you will not be able to predict or avoid. Thinking about it won't make it go away or stop. You can give all the numbers you want but when it comes down to it, so long as you are alive. That is what matters.

Unless you prefer dying instead of surviving then that's on you.

[PhoenixBimmer]

Originally Posted by Arcades

Worrying about injury while driving makes you less of a driver.

Things happen on the road you will not be able to predict or avoid. Thinking about it won't make it go away or stop. You can give all the numbers you want but when it comes down to it, so long as you are alive. That is what matters.

Unless you prefer dying instead of surviving then that's on you.

Please, I have not said anything like I'm worried or I'm not going to buy M3/M4 or thinking something terrible might happen while I'm driving because of this result . I'm just quoting IIHS results. I'm just saying like the other guy, this disappoints/disturbs me different from you.

[PhoenixBimmer]

Originally Posted by SakhirM4

Show me the M3/M4 test where it did not perform well.

For clarification, "it" should be "3 series" in the sentence. Small overlap crash has not been done for M3/M4 as we all know.

[FogCityM3]

Chances are you won't see an M3/M4 test for the same reason you didn't see one for the E90/92 M3, that is the cars are sufficiently structurally similar to the base cars so that regulatory testing is not necessary. If the NHTSA won't test the M3/M4, you have to ask why? If the NHTSA doesn't test it, then won't that render the IIHS even more unlikely to test it?

Assuming that the cars were structurally different enough to warrant NHTSA/IIHS testing, what would logically prevent similar footwell intrusion in comparison to the base car? the axle carrier? the front strut brace? the hood? My impression among M3 owners (and was certainly my belief as well) was that their cars would perform no differently in comparison to the E90/92 base car despite some minor differences.

Agree that the F30 deficiencies should have been addressed. Suggests corporate smugness/complacency with status quo vis-a-vis BMW's competitors.

[PhoenixBimmer]

Originally Posted by s0ul

I used to..tho

Originally Posted by Arcades

Worrying....on you.

Originally Posted by FogCityM3

Chances are you won't see an M3/M4 test for the same reason you didn't see one for the E90/92 M3, that is the cars are sufficiently structurally similar to the base cars so that regulatory testing is not necessary. If the NHTSA won't test the M3/M4, you have to ask why? If the NHTSA doesn't test it, then won't that render the IIHS even more unlikely to test it?

Assuming that the cars were structurally different enough to warrant NHTSA/IIHS testing, what would logically prevent similar footwell intrusion in comparison to the base car? the axle carrier? the front strut brace? the hood? My impression among M3 owners (and was certainly my belief as well) was that their cars would perform no differently in comparison to the E90/92 base car despite some minor differences.

Agree that the F30 deficiencies should have been addressed. Suggests corporate smugness/complacency with status quo vis-a-vis BMW's competitors.

This post seems to be moved ; I enjoyed talking with you all.
Thanks for your comment, FogCityM3

[Ric in RVA]

I have been there and seen a small offset and a large offset crash test personally.

Pretty amazing facility and glad they are there.

So why did they come out with the small offset crash test?

Because all the manufacturers was passing and they needed to raise the bar.

Also because the manufacturers were designing to pass the test....and nothing more.

The small offset is a brutal test since there is little structure beyond the suspension mounting points.

Now you either add structure to absorb energy or set the suspension up to shear off and not intrude into the car.

I wouldn't worry about it.

My two favorite IIHS videos of all time.....

[pokerface]

Apparently Volvo had been advocating this type of crash test for years, and not surprisingly, they have engineered a crash structure that would do well in this sort of collision. Their solution was to insert an angle bar at the corners of the car to let the car glide off the object, and let the wheel shear off.

[bd5400]

Originally Posted by pokerface

Apparently Volvo had been advocating this type of crash test for years, and not surprisingly, they have engineered a crash structure that would do well in this sort of collision. Their solution was to insert an angle bar at the corners of the car to let the car glide off the object, and let the wheel shear off.

I thought it was great that the first generation XC90, despite being from 2003, did really well on the small overlap test. It really separated the manufacturers that design cars with overall safety in mind from those who simply design cars to do well in crash tests.

[MG 228i]

2 series, x3, and x5 did well

[cays]

I'll take all the structural safety I can get in a car. Right foot trapped? That is poor performance. This kind of significant intrusion into the footwell is both unexpected and unwelcome. I'm surprised, I expected better from a new gen/new design bread-and-butter high volume car from BMW. It's not an end-all be-all deciding factor but it's piss poor IMO. Just piss poor.

[Dackelone]

Originally Posted by pokerface

Apparently Volvo had been advocating this type of crash test for years, and not surprisingly, they have engineered a crash structure that would do well in this sort of collision. Their solution was to insert an angle bar at the corners of the car to let the car glide off the object, and let the wheel shear off.

Having a crash, airbags deploying AND loosing a wheel and continuing on wards at almost the same speed(!) is NOT my idea of a "safe car". Seems more like a way to cheat this "test".

[Ric in RVA]

It is very cool to go see them test cars there at the IIHS in Ruckersville VA.

They pull the cars up to speed with a giant tank of compressed air that pushes a hydraulic piston that runs a cable.

This allows them to use ALL the electricity in the building for lighting purposes.

When they turn on the lights for the high speed cameras the conduits near where you stand to watch hum like crazy.

They move the objects that they run into (which weigh many tons) using compressed air through the bottom of the fixture to float it on air.

They just expanded it as well.

[swagon]

'cause all European cars are made to pass Euro NCAP with 5 stars, that's all. Just like emissions.

[IK6SPEED]

Originally Posted by cays

I'll take all the structural safety I can get in a car. Right foot trapped? That is poor performance. This kind of significant intrusion into the footwell is both unexpected and unwelcome. I'm surprised, I expected better from a new gen/new design bread-and-butter high volume car from BMW. It's not an end-all be-all deciding factor but it's piss poor IMO. Just piss poor.

I agree, and the actual solution to fix this is relatively simple, i have a 2014 328i and a 2015 228i, the two cars have the same basic front end chases design (frame rails, upper apron, etc) the difference the two series has is that there is a very thick wide metal bar that gets bolted to the side of the frame rail and wraps around to the footwell part of the chassis where it is bolted on to the footwell, Its very thick and heavy duty. This piece is what helps the 2 series do much better in the small over lap crash test, i took off my fender liner in the 328i and the frame rail design is the same and so it the footwell part of the chassis but it did not have this reinforcement, BMW could have easily added this reinforcement plate to the f30 chassis but i guess it decided not to. part # 27 in the picture

[cays]

^ Interesting find!

[CIWS]

Originally Posted by BimmerDallas

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/veh...s-4-door-sedan

3 series did "Marginal" in small overlap crash test. They did not do anything even for 2016 model while all other brands have done straightening its structure. Now 3 series/M3/M4 is not safe for other cars(like Accord, Sonata).

such a disappointment! hmm.. M3/M4 would be different?

Certainly a fair question, but this will probably be applied when they do a full redesign of the series 3 and 5 vs an LCI. That allows them to design it in from the start. Overall the car has a good safety rating. Remember the guy who crashed his 2013 M5 on the Autobahn going over 180mph.




Meanwhile just keep a hacksaw in the car incase this type of off center crash happens and your foot gets caught by the front tire and the need to exit the vehicle is imperative, like a fire.

[demlotcrew]

Buy an i3........

[bd5400]

Originally Posted by Dackelone

Having a crash, airbags deploying AND loosing a wheel and continuing on wards at almost the same speed(!) is NOT my idea of a "safe car". Seems more like a way to cheat this "test".

Well then it's a good thing you aren't in charge of safety for Volvo...or for crash test ratings.

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by Dackelone

Having a crash, airbags deploying AND loosing a wheel and continuing on wards at almost the same speed(!) is NOT my idea of a "safe car". Seems more like a way to cheat this "test".

I guess your comment is tongue in cheek.

I have spent a large part of my working career in design/R&D in the fall arrest industry, with a lot of similarities to vehicle impact tests. The ability to slow the deceleration and dissipate energy away from the human body and its restraint systems, makes a massive difference to safety.

The Volvo example may appear a bit strange, but I'd rather be in its safety cell, with its 'soft' stop, than in a car which puts the wheel into the foot well, due to a more aggressive impact and a mass that stops in milliseconds.

HighlandPete

[PhoenixBimmer]

Originally Posted by IK6SPEED

I agree...part # 27 in the picture

I guess engineers in BMW knows of this fact very very well by going through designing 2 series then did not do anything for 3 series LCI is disappointment. Thanks for your comment to show what changes should have done made for 3 series/M3/4.

Originally Posted by HighlandPete

I guess...HighlandPete

I agree with you totally.

[F32Fleet]

This small overlap is a common impact in real world.