|
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N********n
发帖数: 543 | 1 这里是总的链条,很多详细内容,大家如果感兴趣,可以看看
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f2281d7
Re: Sienna Ratings [indyguy5] by pact95
Mar 03, 2011 (5:01 am)
Replying to: indyguy5 (Mar 01, 2011 1:42 pm)
I wanted to provide some information I received from the NHTSA on the crash
test of the Sienna, with some
comparison to the Honda. Hopefully this helps people with their decisions.
The Toyota Sienna received a 2-star rating for the right front passenger
while the Honda Odyssey received
a 5-star. This rating is based purely on injury readings from the dummies
which are converted into a
percent change of serious injury to a similarly-sized and positioned
occupant in a similar crash. The two
right front passengers experienced the following percent chances of injury:
Sienna Odyssey
HEAD 6.65% 0.15%
NECK 14.16% 7.23%
CHEST 8.33% 0.26%
FEMUR 2.56% 2.47%
As you can see, the Sienna’s right front passenger experienced a
significantly higher risk of injury to her
head, neck, and chest than the passenger in the Odyssey did. While it is
essential to examine aspects of the
vehicle structure like you have below, the most crucial component in
understanding why these vehicles
performed differently in the full-width frontal barrier test also requires
an examination of their airbags and
seat belts, commonly referred to as the “restraint system.” The restraint
system in the Odyssey allowed for
its right front occupant to manage crash forces much more successfully than
the system in the Sienna. The
details of how or why one system is more successful at this than another is
a question better posed to the
individual vehicle manufacturers, as NHTSA is not intimate with the
specifics of how each manufacturer
designs their systems.
I have addressed your specific questions below:
Similarities in the reporting:
· - The cars had same model crash test dummies
Response: Correct.
· - Both underwent the same impact speed and obstacle
Response: Correct. It is also of note that the Sienna was 95 kg heavier than
the Odyssey was. Because the
Sienna was more massive, it required its occupant to manage more crash
forces than the Odyssey.
· - The rebound of the car off the wall appears to be remarkably similar.
All measurement points appear
close to 100mm off. I would have to imagine that this is a very small amount
difference. Additionally, it
would appear that the Honda rebounded further. Would that not indicate more
force on the items within
the vehicle?
Response: In actually, 100mm is a noticeable difference in front-end crush (
the range of total front-end
crush for the entire fleet is well under 1000mm, including small cars, large
sedans, pickup trucks, etc). The
differences between these two were not actually 100mm, and averaged nearly
59mm across the front end.
Sienna Odyssey Difference
C1 346 393 47
C2 479 490 11
C3 471 536 65
C4 472 541 69
C5 524 512 -12
C6 252 423 171
AVE 424 482.5 58.5
Though vehicle acceleration data was lost for the 2011 Sienna, typically the
two vehicles do have similar
deceleration profiles. I reviewed the rebound footage in both tests and
agree with your first observation that
they were similar. Overall, the Odyssey experienced more crush and therefore
absorbed more energy across
its front end. However, as I have indicated above, the vehicles differed
slightly with respect to test weight,
and examining the front-end structure only gives part of the story when
examining how the crash forces
are experienced, and subsequently managed, by the occupants inside.
· - Vehicle profile measurements appear again to be fairly similar. The
measurements seem to indicate the
car absorbed roughly the same impact and crumple zones absorbed the impact
in a similar manner in
measurement.
· - The “CRUSH PROFILE” appears to be very similar data as well,
supporting the statement in the bullet
above. I do see that on the Toyota row “L” totals “C1 to C6” and shows a
number that clearly adds the cells
above where the Honda in the same cells totals some number that is not equal
to the cells above. Hopefully
this number is not necessary for a crash test result.
Response: The crush profile is not used in the star rating. Again, as I
stated previously, crush and front end
response is not the entire story in determining an occupant’s chance of
injury. “L” is a measure of the front
end width of the vehicle before and after the crash, not the addition of C1
to C6, and is also not necessary
for the star rating.
· - It appears that the passenger side floorboard data shows the Toyota to
me more structurally sound.
Response: Floorboard data could have an effect on foot and lower leg
accelerations; however, neither of
these are reflected in our star ratings. As an aside, the level of floorpan
intrusion at the passenger’s
position in both vehicles is very similar and also negligible.
Differences in the reporting:
· - The occupant summary is confusing to me. It almost seems as though the
numbers in some of the table
data are calculated completely different between the two tests. This would
be page 1-1 in Toyota review
and page 2 in Honda review. If the numbers take the same inputs and use the
same algorithms, I would
expect the numbers to be closer, maybe off by some magnitude. These are off
by some magnitude and then
compounded by the sign, they seem worlds apart.
Response: What you are seeing in terms of injury readings in each test is
indeed accurate. I have converted
them to their corresponding percent chance of injury in the chart above so
you may see how they differ. In
all cases, positive or negative, the larger the number, the higher the
injury reading (so, larger is worse). The
Sienna’s injury readings were significantly poorer than the Odyssey’s. The
sign convention for neck
compression, chest displacement and femur readings should be negative since
they are compression-
related injuries (it is understood that they are negative). The sign is
often times implied. We apologize for
the confusion.
· - Page 2-2 of the report shows no knee airbag installed in the Toyota Sienna yet on page 2-17 shows
both airbags exist in table “TEST DUMMY INFORMATION AND CONTACT” and again shows no airbag in table
“SUPPLIMENTAL RESTRAINT SYSTEM INFORMATION”. I am confused about whether this vehicle in the test
had/didn’t have a knee airbag for the passenger. Since I own one, I suspect it didn’t as mine does not.
There appears to be a flaw in your report though.
Response: The passenger dummy did not have a knee airbag, but the driver did. I will alert the proper
personnel of the error in the report.
· - Was trying to compare the seat angle and position. In both reports, it is hard to grasp the angle of the
passenger seat and the position within the car. I see reference to detents, what are these? Can I get further
clarification on this data?
Response: The seat angle and the subsequent position of the occupant with respect to the airbag
dependents largely on the seat’s range of adjustment as designed by its manufacturer. “Detents” refer to
the positioning and adjustment “notches” each seat is designed with by its manufacturer. Our program uses
the seating procedure from FMVSS No. 208 to position the seats and the dummies. That procedure can be
found here:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/Vehicle+Safety/Test+Procedures
You’ll specifically want to examine the procedure for a Hybrid III 50th male in the driver’s seat and a Hybrid
III 5th female in the right front passenger’s seat.
Thanks to all. Hopefully this helps some people gain clarity. | s*******e
发帖数: 1298 | 2 给个摘要行不？我觉得sienna的气囊是按照成年男性设计的，假人是女的，所以气囊膨
胀力道太大导致
成绩烂。就车体结构来是说，我看没啥问题；是这意思不？？
crash
decisions.
【在 N********n 的大作中提到】
: 这里是总的链条,很多详细内容,大家如果感兴趣,可以看看
: http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f2281d7
: Re: Sienna Ratings [indyguy5] by pact95
: Mar 03, 2011 (5:01 am)
: Replying to: indyguy5 (Mar 01, 2011 1:42 pm)
: I wanted to provide some information I received from the NHTSA on the crash
: test of the Sienna, with some
: comparison to the Honda. Hopefully this helps people with their decisions.
: The Toyota Sienna received a 2-star rating for the right front passenger
: while the Honda Odyssey received
| N********n
发帖数: 543 | 3 没啥好摘要的, 关键就是细节....关心的自然会读....
俺现在也很徘徊....俺甚至去看了具体的那个原始报告,反正这个两星很蹊跷.....副驾
坐个女人也没啥不正常的.....唉
俺还有个选择就是坚持到下半年,反正还没那么急.....2012版有新改进??
偷油獭好像网上下了功夫,极少地方有人讨论这个....
【在 s*******e 的大作中提到】
: 给个摘要行不？我觉得sienna的气囊是按照成年男性设计的，假人是女的，所以气囊膨
: 胀力道太大导致
: 成绩烂。就车体结构来是说，我看没啥问题；是这意思不？？
:
: crash
: decisions.
| f****l
发帖数: 8042 | 4 关键是几乎所有的汽车网站和杂志都是把sienna排在minivan推荐榜第一。所以估计所
有想买的人都
很纠结。不过感觉路上跑的新odyssey还是比sienna多一些。不过其实odyssey和sienna
的价格没
有什么差别。
【在 N********n 的大作中提到】
: 没啥好摘要的, 关键就是细节....关心的自然会读....
: 俺现在也很徘徊....俺甚至去看了具体的那个原始报告,反正这个两星很蹊跷.....副驾
: 坐个女人也没啥不正常的.....唉
: 俺还有个选择就是坚持到下半年,反正还没那么急.....2012版有新改进??
: 偷油獭好像网上下了功夫,极少地方有人讨论这个....
| a**e
发帖数: 5794 | 5 MSRP看起来差不多，售价差两三千。
sienna
【在 f****l 的大作中提到】
: 关键是几乎所有的汽车网站和杂志都是把sienna排在minivan推荐榜第一。所以估计所
: 有想买的人都
: 很纠结。不过感觉路上跑的新odyssey还是比sienna多一些。不过其实odyssey和sienna
: 的价格没
: 有什么差别。
| g*g
发帖数: 6908 | 6 新odyssey的后1/3，还是没能看习惯了
sienna
【在 f****l 的大作中提到】
: 关键是几乎所有的汽车网站和杂志都是把sienna排在minivan推荐榜第一。所以估计所
: 有想买的人都
: 很纠结。不过感觉路上跑的新odyssey还是比sienna多一些。不过其实odyssey和sienna
: 的价格没
: 有什么差别。
| f****l
发帖数: 8042 | 7 人家这个看习惯了就是特色。其他van的外观设计那就是没特色。
【在 g*g 的大作中提到】
: 新odyssey的后1/3，还是没能看习惯了
:
: sienna
| f****l
发帖数: 8042 | 8 都六缸的对比好像差不了那么多。
【在 a**e 的大作中提到】
: MSRP看起来差不多，售价差两三千。
:
: sienna
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
