cgaydos said:
theds said:
apvbguy said:
the test hasn't changed, the car hasn't changed so why has the rating changed?
I think it's the first time they did this "small overlap" test. As LEAF hasn't changed structurally, IIHS has also given a poor rating to the 2013 model.
The small overlap test was introduced in 2012 and they only do a few models at a time. The LEAF had not been previously run through this test.
There are a fair number of cars that previously were top safety picks which had poor results in this new test, including two of the Prius models.
It's called moving the goal posts. I haven't had time to read this whole thread, but all automakers optimize their cars to do better/well on standardized crash tests (tests that were known at the time of the car's original design e.g. NHTSA's, IIHS, Japan NCAP, Euro NCAP, etc.) IIHS didn't add this test until 2012. Leaf's structural design had to be completed WAY before it went on sale in December 2010.
FWIW, IIHS seemed to like to move the goal posts and then broadcasting that Toyotas would fail/do badly at some of their new tests, years after the car's engineering and design was finalized:
http://priuschat.com/threads/insurance-institute-for-highway-safety-vs-toyota.72369/#post-1618788" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://priuschat.com/threads/iis-and-a-preliminary-report.130908/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
cgaydos said:
The question is what do you do if you have one of those cars when the results are announced? You've been driving it around for months or years. Did it suddenly become unsafe? And if you do move into a new car that scores higher on the current tests, might that car also score poorly on the next phase of testing to be introduced a few years from now?
Those are questions that each individual must answer for him/herself.
Yep.
With some of the FUD and misunderstandings going on this thread, those folks should use some logic. For cars that are never tested in this MUCH harsher small overlap test (introduced in 2012), should you immediately dump it because almost certainly never will be tested for it and the car was never designed to do well on it?
And, if it is tested and performs this way, should you immediately dump it because it "suddenly became unsafe"?
pkulak said:
You are out of your freaking mind if you think a "poor" rating on one test makes a Leaf even in the same league as a motorcycle. They don't call those things "donor bikes" for nothing.
+100
On a motorcycle, what protection does the rider's body have in the event he's struck by a car or strikes an object? Even my friend who's very much into motorcycles (and has a few of his own) admits that even the worst performing car in a crash test is likely 1000 times safer than being in a crash on a motorcyclist.
bbrowncods said:
Would this be considered a defective vehicle that would require Nissan to fix or replace?
No.
TomT said:
No, it passed all the required DOT safety tests at the time of manufacture. These IIHS tests test at a level beyond what the manufacturers are required to meet.
Should the minimum level that manufacturers are required to meet be raised? Probably, but that is a topic for another conversation...
bbrowncods said:
Would this be considered a defective vehicle that would require Nissan to fix or replace?
Agree.
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=435977" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; mentions
Note that federal law requires all vehicles to pass a 30-mph frontal crash test before they can be sold in the United States. The separate NCAP frontal crash tests are performed at 35 mph to make differences between vehicles more apparent. The full-width crash test maximizes energy absorption of the entire frontal car structure and illustrates the accompanying stresses on the vehicle's passenger restraints.
I don't know off the top of my head, but I find it highly likely that mandated 30 mph test is a full-width frontal crash, not an offset crash.
mtndrew1 said:
It seems to me that you might have a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of a defect as opposed to a design working as intended, but with undesirable outcomes.
...
Completely agree w/your post.