soren wrote:
Crash ratings are developed by actually crashing vehicles. Your entire post is based on supposition and opinion, quite the opposite of how testing, and real world scientifically based results are gathered.
Not sure why you are so aggressively coming at me here...
Crash ratings are developed by crashing vehicles into similar vehicles or similarly weighted rams. My entire post is based upon the real world in which crash testing isn't done with similar weights and speeds, isn't perfectly aligned for offset and angular approach. Scientifically based results are great... but the real world provides real results. There is a reason they are referred to as RATINGS, as opposed to PROMISES OF SAFETY from the government. Those tests are designed to show the relative safety of one vehicle compared to another. It would be prohibitively expensive to crash every single car into every single car, therefore they crash every single car into an equal size car and give a comparative rating.
Modern cars have crumple zones, designed to slow the deceleration of vehicles to lessen the impact on victims. I've personally been on the scene of a collision in an older vehicle at less than 25 mph that killed the elderly driver. The sudden and violent deceleration from 25 to zero tore her aorta and she internally bled to death before I could arrive. A crumple zone would probably have saved her life.
I'm not sure what this has to due with FCA and a potential merger partner though...
