Check this out

This is one of the original crash test videos for the Pontiac Fiero. In this video, dummies were restrained with the factory seatbelts.

"Fieros are deathtraps!" Not hardly......

Many people think that the Pontiac Fiero is an unsafe vehicle due to its small size. It turns out that the Fiero was the safest vehicle ever tested by the NHTSA without airbags. It was the second safest vehicle on the road in 1985, second to the Volvo DL Wagon. The DL had airbags. Even by today's standards, the Fiero still rivals many newer vehicles on the road today.

The methods of testing are exactly the same in 2010 as they were back in 1979 when NHTSA began testing cars. Cars are tested by impacting a solid barrier at 35 MPH.

The Fiero received a 5 star crash rating for both driver and passenger. A 5-star rating means a 10% or lower chance of serious injury. So 5-star means the same now as it meant 25 years ago.

Here are a few comparisons:
1984 Pontiac Fiero
Driver *****
Passenger *****
Rollover*****
Head Injury Criterion: 356.5/308.6
Chest Deceleration (G): 30.9/29.9
Femur Load 840/800 800/740

2003 Cadillac Deville
Driver *
Passenger ***
Rollover ****
Head Injury Criterion: 826/507
Chest Deceleration (G): 75/58
Femur Load: 825/1297 875/848

2007 Buick Lacrosse
Driver *****
Passenger *****
Rollover ****
Head Injury Criterion: 374/259
Chest Deceleration (G): 43/42
Femur Load: 1099/1112 909/405

2009 Ford Focus
Driver *****
Passenger *****
Rollover ****
Head Injury Criterion: 521/389
Chest Deceleration (G): 40/40
Femur Load: 1133/1652 1138/968

As you can see, the 1980s Pontiac is still one of the safer cars on the road today. The Fiero is as good as or better than many of today's vehicles that have airbags.

The Fiero is also very stable. The Fiero received a Static Stability Factor, or Rollover Resistance rating, of 1.47. This equates to a 5-star rollover rating.

Even if you are unfortunate enough to get into a rollover accident, the Fiero excels in safety once again with its incredibly strong roof structure. According to the NHTSA, the Fiero was tested by inverted drop and roof crush testing. In the inverted drop test, the Fiero, along with cars like the Ford F150 and Plymouth Laser were turned over and dropped on their roofs. The Fiero scored best with 8.3 cm crush on the a-pillar and 3.8 cm on the B-pillar. The Ford F-150 had the worst rating with 42.5cm crush on a-pillar and 40.6cm on the B-pillar. The Plymouth Laser actually had a slightly better rating than Fiero for B pillar with 3.2cm crush.

In another publication, NHTSA tested cars roofs by crushing them with a steel plate and hydraulic ram. In the example given, the Chevrolet S10 had the worst rating with 5320 lbs roof strength, while the Fiero has the highest rating with 9909 lbs of roof strength. This equates to 3.53 roof strength to weight ratio, complying with even the most recent roof strength requirement of 3.00:1 strength ratio. It is kind of funny how the Pontiac Fiero is still meeting many of the most modern crash test requirements without even frontal airbags.....

Now for Death rate. Death rate is a number given to cars to reflect the likelihood of death in any particular vehicle. The Fiero, along with Camaros and Firebirds, happen to have a very high death rate. A high death rate doesn't mean the car is unsafe, it just means that this type of car is going to be driven faster and more recklessly, increasing the chance of an accident, which in turn, increases the chance of serious injury or death. If you hit a concrete wall at 80MPH with no seatbelts on, I don't care what car you are in, you will be killed. The human body just simply cannot take that kind of G load and people need to stop driving like idiots. Please comment. I would like to see your reaction to this and hear some of your crash stories. Please drive responsibly.

CRASH TEST VID vvvv

http://www.youtube.com/watc...OGHUQ&feature=fvwrel

^This is how I convinced my parents to let me buy one!

------------------
86 Fiero GTX project now tearing up the street, My build thread! 3800sc, interior, wheels, suspension and more! https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum1/HTML/089483.html

I agree with you. My uncle has a junk yard and we use to part them out. We got some cars that were pretty torn up and the cockpit was fine. I saw a FIero that smashed into what appeared to be a telephone pole directly in the center. Both doors opened and closed fine. The frame of a fiero can resemble a Smart car.

We bought a parts car in Florida that a man had hit a tree square on the nose at 45 mph. He got out with bruises from the seatbelt holding him so tight but no other injuries (okay, maybe ego and pride). Complete tear down and junked the frame, nose, hood, and a fender.

[This message has been edited by johnyrottin (edited 11-08-2012).]

I believe this is Fie Ro's former Fiero... If memory is correct, the estimate is that he wrecked it while rolling around 70ish KM/H

quote Originally posted by JohnWPB: I am not sure if this is the one you are referring to, but I saved the photo's some time ago. I do not know who owned the car, be he did survive with just a broken leg. To look at that car, and think someone walked away, (With NO airbags mind you!) just amazes me! These photo's were purportedly taken the day after the accident. If this is not a testimate to how the space frame keeps the passenger compartment in tact, I don't know what is!

quote Originally posted by Puffpufpass: So 5-star means the same now as it meant 25 years ago.

Actually it doesn't in the way you imply. A 5 star rating is for that model yr, since the standards change with each new safety legislation, vehicles get stronger and stiffer. You take a 5* 2012 model car (lets say a Ford Focus) and crash it into a Fiero, and it will rip thru a Fiero like it was tissue paper. Cars today have so much UHSS and are so incredibly stiff.. even 5 star cars of 10yrs ago wouldn't stand a chance in a head to head crash test. 5th Gear did a test on this very subject recently. IIRC they used two 5* NCAP rated mini vans of the same make & model, one new, one 10yrs old or so. The new one utterly destroyed the older version.

[This message has been edited by BV MotorSports (edited 11-09-2012).]

Actually, to say today's vehicles are stiff, isn't a good way to describe them. Today's vehicles are designed to "absorb" energy in a crash, better than they were when the Fiero was designed. Now that doesn't take away the fact that when the Fiero was designed / tested for crash, it performed extremely well in protecting occupants.

Based on crash standards vehicles have to be designed with "crush zones" that collapse at a given rate, absorbing energy, slowing forces before they get to the passenger compartment. The vehicle designs entail an incredible amount of engineering which covers more parts of the car than many people could ever imagine.

[This message has been edited by California Kid (edited 11-09-2012).]

quote Originally posted by BV MotorSports: Actually it doesn't in the way you imply. A 5 star rating is for that model yr, since the standards change with each new safety legislation, vehicles get stronger and stiffer. You take a 5* 2012 model car (lets say a Ford Focus) and crash it into a Fiero, and it will rip thru a Fiero like it was tissue paper. Cars today have so much UHSS and are so incredibly stiff.. even 5 star cars of 10yrs ago wouldn't stand a chance in a head to head crash test. 5th Gear did a test on this very subject recently. IIRC they used two 5* NCAP rated mini vans of the same make & model, one new, one 10yrs old or so. The new one utterly destroyed the older version.

a vehicle that now 10 years later is 1000-1400 lb's heavier will do that.. no shock there.. it may utterly destroy the older version, BU was the people any saver in the newer one than the older one??

The FIero is good but many of todays cars will hold up better. I have first hand been in and lived through a Fiero crash and a modern day car crash. The Fiero was the best of its era but do not think it is better than todays cars. Like everything else things have improved and many of todays cars will with stand not only the head on crash but other type crashes.

I can safely say if I was in a crash today I would rather be in my HHR vs the Fiero in a head on. Also the Fiero was weak in side impacts compared to todays vehicles. This is one area modern cars have made great improvments.

I am not saying the Fiero is bad but it also not as good as some would like to make it vs most of todays cars.

Here is a photo of a friends wifes HHR that hit a van head on at 60+ MPH. She had a fracture in the foot and thumb just from the impact but walked away from the crash.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Not too I lost two friends back in the 80s in a FIero when it was hit in the side. The car was torn in half a bad Fiero issue and they were crushed. The other driver walked away.

The Fiero is good for its time and still not horrible for today but if I could choose what I was going to be crashed in it would be a present day car even less an air bag. My air bag is the only injury I had with my new car. It cut and burned the hell out of me.

My son totaled my first Fiero when he side swiped a tree while going off the road and down a bank sideways. The doors are incredibly strong. I was the passenger and wasn't wearing my seatbelt because we were just driving around the neighborhood. Normally I wear the seatbelt to move the car in the driveway but... Anyway, he lost control going around a corner and we left the road. We both walked away with nothing more than some scratches from the broken glass. Even though it was totaled, I was able to start it and drive it home the next day.

Jonathan

This pretty much says it all... notice what is said right at the 3 minute mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQS-7heF-og

[This message has been edited by BV MotorSports (edited 11-09-2012).]

quote Originally posted by BV MotorSports: This pretty much says it all... notice what is said right at the 3 minute mark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQS-7heF-og

It's a poor choice of words by a TV Commentator, which doesn't hold true for the entire vehicle. You don't have to believe me, but what I said above is true (I've been involved with Vehicle Design for many, many years).

Regarding high strength steel being used for structural integrity, the complete picture is a decision process as follows:

- Weight Savings, by reduced thickness required to perform.
- Improved structural integrity through designed in crush/fold zones via Finite Element Computer Analysis. HSS offers a greater variety on engineering solutions to the design.

Crash design is very complex, however the main factor is to reduce the "G" Load impact to the passengers. You cannot accomplish this by designing a "stiff vehicle", the vehicle has to absorb the energy, not the occupants. The picture above of the HHR is a great example of how the front of the vehicle crushed to absorb crash energy, had it been "Stiff" that driver wouldn't have been so lucky.

I love the fiero, anyone who says it not safe doesn't have to go for a ride in it. No one in my family finds them safe. Cousin got in it the other day and she said she would die if we rolled over.

I had seen pictures of one ran over by a semi trailer at highway speeds and guy came out with scratches. The cars end up totaled in accidents but the number of injuries are slim to none.

quote Originally posted by California Kid: It's a poor choice of words by a TV Commentator, which doesn't hold true for the entire vehicle. You don't have to believe me, but what I said above is true (I've been involved with Vehicle Design for many, many years). Regarding high strength steel being used for structural integrity, the complete picture is a decision process as follows: - Weight Savings, by reduced thickness required to perform. - Improved structural integrity through designed in crush/fold zones via Finite Element Computer Analysis. HSS offers a greater variety on engineering solutions to the design. Crash design is very complex, however the main factor is to reduce the "G" Load impact to the passengers. You cannot accomplish this by designing a "stiff vehicle", the vehicle has to absorb the energy, not the occupants. The picture above of the HHR is a great example of how the front of the vehicle crushed to absorb crash energy, had it been "Stiff" that driver wouldn't have been so lucky.

I do understand the difference between chassis stiffness and crumple zones..... I had to set thru many long and boring classes for the I-Car certification. BTW, if you watch the entire ep, the NCAP rep (our version of NHTSA) uses the term "vehicle stiffness" several times to explain why the modern car utterly push thru an older car. Yes, mass has a lot to do with it, but so does the inherent stiffness or rigidity of the newer vehicle. Newer cars are just so much stronger. Surely you, of all people, should understand the crumple zones (and resulting damage) are not an indication of how strong or "stiff" the chassis may be.

quote Originally posted by BV MotorSports: I do understand the difference between chassis stiffness and crumple zones..... I had to set thru many long and boring classes for the I-Car certification. BTW, if you watch the entire ep, the NCAP rep (our version of NHTSA) uses the term "vehicle stiffness" several times to explain why the modern car utterly push thru an older car. Yes, mass has a lot to do with it, but so does the inherent stiffness or rigidity of the newer vehicle. Newer cars are just so much stronger. Surely you, of all people, should understand the crumple zones (and resulting damage) are not an indication of how strong or "stiff" the chassis may be.

if these new cars are so stiff/strong then loose the 15 air bags.. they are NOT stronger.. not at all.. if they where and seatbelts did the jobs they keep say'n they do.. you'd have no need for a zillion airbags..
the test for "stars " are a joke.. a 2700 lb car has no chance against a 3 ton truck.. no matter when it was made.. oldercars look worse after a crash as there is so much airspace in the car.. unlike todays cars that there is no room in the car anywhere.. so the core support cant cave 18" in as there is so much junk in the way.. take air bags out. and new cars are unsafe at anyspeed

quote Originally posted by BV MotorSports: ............

You appear to be missing my point regarding crash, the only part of the vehicle that needs to maintain structural integrity is the "cage" of the passenger compartment, the rest of the vehicle is sacrificial to absorb impact. As you are probably aware, everything in NACAR, INDY, and Formula 1 is designed that way for a reason, and new car design learns from these extreme crash cases. At the time the Fiero was designed, it had one of the best structurally sound mid chassis, that grew into future vehicle designs.

http://www.greensmokeracing...-drivers-protection/

Last post in this thread for me.

[This message has been edited by California Kid (edited 11-09-2012).]

quote Originally posted by E.Furgal: if these new cars are so stiff/strong then loose the 15 air bags.. they are NOT stronger.. not at all.. if they where and seatbelts did the jobs they keep say'n they do.. you'd have no need for a zillion airbags.. the test for "stars " are a joke.. a 2700 lb car has no chance against a 3 ton truck.. no matter when it was made.. oldercars look worse after a crash as there is so much airspace in the car.. unlike todays cars that there is no room in the car anywhere.. so the core support cant cave 18" in as there is so much junk in the way.. take air bags out. and new cars are unsafe at anyspeed

LOL You cant be serious? WOW.. really?

quote Originally posted by E.Furgal: if these new cars are so stiff/strong then loose the 15 air bags..

You totally missed the point behind airbags. The car itself doesn't care if it gets crushed in a crash, it's the occupants that are being protected. The whole point is to decelerate the passenger in a safe manner. Even if the person doesn't have a scratch on them they can be injured if their brain slams into the front of their skull. The airbags slows down the body in a more controlled manner preventing the injuries.

quote Originally posted by jscott1: You totally missed the point behind airbags. The car itself doesn't care if it gets crushed in a crash, it's the occupants that are being protected. The whole point is to decelerate the passenger in a safe manner. Even if the person doesn't have a scratch on them they can be injured if their brain slams into the front of their skull. The airbags slows down the body in a more controlled manner preventing the injuries.

Not to mention the legislation requiring the air bags. The more you slow the deceleration process, less energy gets transmitted to the passengers thus making them safer. Every part of a modern car is sacrificial to the passenger compartment. Its not that the older cars had more "dead space". lol

Here a good example of a modern car vs old design. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g

The Fiero was the first of thes modern GM cars to use this cage style protection something Benz and Volvo had been using.
Also it is why cars like the Malibu also weigh in as much as the much larger Impala.

The key to survival in cars today is the passenger compartment to to remian ridged and the nose tail and side to take and absorb the impact. The air bags are just added protectopm for the body inside this chamber.

In dealing with many cars and crashes over the years I have seen much that is amazing on how good and bad some designs are.

There are cars like the Smart car that are very stiff but lack a lot of crumple zone. You may come out with nothing more than a foot injury but your brain will bounce off your skull and detatch from the spine.
There will never be a car that will take it all in a crash but we have done so much better than in the past. Physics come into play and the weak link everytime is the passenger.

Hence why they are now building jet fighter drones that can fly and turn faster than any plane with a human in the cockpit.

G forces hate people. It is not the crash that kills you it is the sudden stop.

In the "Good Old Days" they repaired the car, put the people in a box. Now we save the people, buy a newer car.
I drove a wrecker for 5 years. In some of the wrecks it might have been better to save the car and through the dumb **** driver away.

This from a guy that lost kids to a drunk driver.

quote Originally posted by hyperv6: .. There are cars like the Smart car that are very stiff but lack a lot of crumple zone. You may come out with nothing more than a foot injury but your brain will bounce off your skull and detatch from the spine. There will never be a car that will take it all in a crash but we have done so much better than in the past. Physics come into play and the weak link everytime is the passenger. Hence why they are now building jet fighter drones that can fly and turn faster than any plane with a human in the cockpit. G forces hate people. It is not the crash that kills you it is the sudden stop.

Thanks for explaining that better than I did. The real problem is that the human is the weak link in the equation. Decelerating a human that quickly can kill you even without crashing into anything.

The ultimate solution will be when we fully understand the laws of physics and we can build the "inertia dampers" of Star Trek and cancel out the motion at the molecular level. They are working on it...look up magnetic levitation. With a strong enough magnetic field a human could be suspended in mid-air at the molecular level. Right now it would take the output of Hoover dam, but Mr. Fusion would make it practical.

When I watch these shows like Cops and It only hurts when I laugh I see a major decline in brain power in our society.

Anymore I believe all this is due to the laws that make us use seat belts, helmets and air bags. Around the time these all came about people started getting dumber and dumber. In the past most of these people died in car and motorcycle crashed and today we protect them and they Procreate.

Time to cull the heard. LOL!

quote Originally posted by hyperv6: Time to cull the heard. LOL!

You got that right. Time to improve the gene pool.